Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Which source distributions should we list?

[C Y]

--- address@hidden wrote:
> 
> I believe we should list them all. Each developer has a choice of the
> source code control mechanism that fits his needs and interests. 
> Gaby and Waldek seem to like SVN. Bill likes Darcs. The silver
version
> uses SVN/git. The main gold version will continue using the ARCH/CVS
> tools.
> 
> The only "end-user visible" systems should be the ARCH/CVS versions.

Erm.  It may be a good thing I didn't change AxiomSources.  I was under
the impression we were going to the following for "official" use:

Silver:  GIT/svn
Gold:  CVS

ARCH, as I understand it, is not really undergoing active development
any more.  I think in such a case we should not encourage active work
in that tool.  If we want an alternative to CVS for Gold and we want to
keep SVN for development only, I would suggest adding a GIT repository
for Gold as well.  (Maybe a branch?)

Darcs and Mercurial can stay put as alternatives - Bill is syncing them
to something and they are actively developed tools.  ARCH, however,
seems to have become a bit of a dead end unless I am behind the times. 
Can we at least make a tiered structure:

Tier1:  As above.  The default "public face" for Axiom sources.
Tier2:  "Alternative" methods.  Darcs, Mercurial, etc.
Tier3:  The "archive" page, listing all branches and systems tried with
Axiom.  If anyone gets that far, presumably they know what they are
doing.

Cheers,
CY


      
____________________________________________________________________________________Fussy?
 Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay 
it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7