On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, David Aspinall wrote:
There are several reasons to suggest sf. One is the provision of trac.
So you actually like trac? As a German I always pronounce it with a very
soft "t". Seriously: I am looking for a really good issue tracker for a
few years already, one that do
I would not expect a paragraph that starts with "modern" end with
"Sourceforge". They added some half-harted support for Mercurial,
Bazaar, Git some years ago, and people rightly complained that it was
"too late and too little".
There are several reasons to suggest sf. One is the provision of
I'd recommend Savannah (either as a GNU or a non-GNU project).
interesting idea, good choice of VC systems there, not just bzr
Which reminds me: it would be nice to include PG into the GNU ELPA (a
package archive from which Elisp packages can be installed conveniently
via package.el). If yo
> I am keen to use a more modern distributed system but it probably means
> choosing an external provider rather than trying to get the University to
> provide yet another semi-supported tool that works at the beginning and then
> rusts. Sourceforge is the most likely candidate.
I'd recommend Sav
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, David Aspinall wrote:
I am keen to use a more modern distributed system but it probably means
choosing an external provider rather than trying to get the University
to provide yet another semi-supported tool that works at the beginning
and then rusts. Sourceforge is the m
> If you want a ChangeLog containing only the messages for the main
> trunk then you can include the options ``-r -b'' in the rcs2log
> call in Makefile.devel.
I think this is a fine solution. We haven't used branches much (partly because
they are a mess in CVS), and the idea is that they conta
