Adam Turoff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 12:14:17AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The decisions should be based on technical merit and general availability.
I would include "available under a free software license" as part of the
definition of "general
Bennett,
Perforce is a better source code control system than the source
alternatives, and certainly better for the task we face than CVS.
You're certainly not forced to use it. You can, if you rather, grab
snapshot archives, rsync from the repository directory, or even grab a copy
of the
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:31:37PM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
2000-09-07-17:11:50 Dan Sugalski:
That's certainly possible, but since the reason we're gathered here
together working on trying to launch perl6 is a collective belief
that perl5 has become unmaintainable for further development,
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:49:36PM -0400, Peter Allen wrote:
They have a catchy slogan for it. They call it the
test -- code -- design
development cycle.
That sounds bad. I've heard about this style. Code now, refactor
later. Its supposed to avoid the need for sweeping
Michael G Schwern writes:
There's one solution, now that we have a nifty source control stuff.
Branch like mad! Feature creep should be discouraged, but if a group
wants to go off and work on something which isn't going to make it
into the next release they can branch and play.
That
So we're three weeks away from the end of this. I've been thinking
about where we went right and where we went wrong (and in particular,
what I would do differently if I had it to do again).
The biggest thing is that I underestimated the volume of traffic. I
never thought there'd be so many
