Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: A modest proposal

[Stephen Wilson]

Hi Ralph,

Ralf Hemmecke <address@hidden> writes:

> BTW, has someone though about where we were now if NAG had given Axiom
> (including a autoconf build environment) to Tim?
> 
> We had something like BI but probably totally undocumented. Why cannot
> we take that position now. I am sure that if the tests work out fine,
> why shouldn't we quickly work with autoconf?

I really have no objection to the use of autoconf.  There is a huge
investment of knowledge encapsulated into that system which we would be
remiss to ignore.

I do not see a conflict between me advocating ASDF and autoconf, BTW.

> I wait for Gaby to submit a patch. I think that will be the better
> road than simply switch to wh-sandbox and make some people angry. We
> should stay together as a community. Please.

I totally agree.  All I hope for is that the patch is documented and
is in keeping with the clearly stated goals of the project.  I want to
be able to understand such a patch in detail, without having to second
guess the authors intent.  I am encouraged by Gaby's statements w.r.t
his willingness to expand on the details if something is not clear.
This is precisely the attitude we need if we hope to make documentation
a priority for the project.

> If Axiom is as well know as Linux then we may become much more
> restrictive which patches go into Axiom. Then it is time to really
> "force" people to submit LP patches. But now we should make Axiom
> attractive!!!

I believe we all have to agree that there exists a common goal.  I
dont think there is a fast path to an amicable result.  I have enough
people telling me that they want something done yesterday.  Axiom, I
hope, is an oasis from such expectations.

Sincerely,
Steve