Re: [Axiom-developer] Preferred SCM

[Ralf Hemmecke]

I hope Axiom stays with GNU arch. In particular, in the future we could 
more and more exploit the "multiple archives" feature and the "star-merge".

I am relatively new to Arch, but after reading about it and about 
Subversion. I think GNU Arch is more powerful even if it lacks nice 
GUIs. (BTW there is xtla for emacs http://wiki.gnuarch.org/xtla -- 
unfortunately I haven't had time to install it properly.)

I particular "star-merge" sounded quite nice to me. (And that is missing 
in SVN.)

In fact development could work like that:
Tim is maintaining the "official" Axiom sources and only he has write 
access to it (but anyone can read it).
Everyone could open up his own archive, ie just branch from the latest 
official (axiom--main--1) version (for example axiom--myfeature--1.0) 
and develop into that archive until some feature has been completed. If 
in the meantime, axiom--main--1 got another patch, it would be easy to 
integrate that into axiom--myfeature--1.0.
Finally send a mail to Tim and tell him the place of the archive. Tim 
(or maybe in the future any other group of reviewers) could check the 
new feature and integrate that into axiom--main--1 by just calling
star-merge, see

http://regexps.srparish.net/tutorial-tla/development-branches.html

Ralf

PS: If time permits, I'll add some section into volume 4 "Developer's 
Guide".


On 02/05/2006 08:21 AM, root wrote:
> The primary sources are maintained under arch due to the availability
> of "changesets".
>
> The secondary sources (at sourceforge and savannah) are under CVS
> because that's the available system.
>
> The wiki sources are maintained under darcs.
>
> The reasons are historical. There was a bit of debate about using
> changesets instead of CVS. SVN was not available at the time. Arch
> was the front-runner and had some of the features of bitkeeper.
> We considered using bitkeeper but that's a commercial product.
>
> It still is not clear to me which system is optimal. Arch is powerful
> but we only use the changeset feature. Darcs is easy but not as powerful
> as Arch. CVS is universal but lacks changesets. SVN combines some of
> these features. ... and then there is 'git' which I've recently 
> experimented with. 
>
>
> Generally the axiom sources are posted in arch, savannah, and sourceforge
> within 24 hours of each other so they should be identical. Thus you can
> use either arch or cvs.
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Axiom-developer mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer