[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Axiom-developer] Re: Version numbers

From: Ralf Hemmecke
Subject: [Axiom-developer] Re: Version numbers
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:11:14 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20070604)

> Martin Ruber wrote:
>> I have the feeling that "trunk" and "branches" is somewhat unfitting
>> for the Axiom project. Currently, wh-sandbox seems most useable to me.

Bill Page wrote:
> Although no one has named it as such, I think effectively we have the
> situation of a "fork" in the Axiom sources.

Tim pointed out to me that he has previously written to the email list
about this. He says that when one joins an open source project and
wants to "contribute" then it it is your responsibility to make sure
that your work gets merged into the main line (first Method above).
But no one has done this. And we now see 3 different things being
called "axiom"... Gold, build-Improvements and wh-sandbox. He says
this is a "fork" because there is no acknowledgment that this work
should go back into the main line.

I am afraid that Tim might be right about this, although I do think
there has been *some* acknowledgment that these changes *should* go
back into the main line.

I am too lazy now to search the archives, but hasn't Gaby once said that he would like to merge BI and trunk? The only problem was that there are now some patches that have been made on BI that are also picked up by Tim and applied to trunk. (Gaby, please correct me if I am wrong.) Unfortunately SVN does not track which patches have been applied already so a simple

svn merge or svk emerge

will result of a lot of conflicts since some (already applied) patches would be unnecessary. Without a record of the svn revision numbers that merging is a terribly hard task.

Nevertheless, to go forward, I'd like to ask Tim: Do you allow Gaby to merge his autoconf code into trunk even if you don't understand it?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]