Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newer tinycc repository?

[Peter Lund]

On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 19:14 +0800, KHMan wrote:

> I guess it depends on who becomes the next maintainer. Does the
> community want "Rob II"?

I think we want "Rob without the Asperger's" ;)

What we will probably get is a loose band of people, some of whom
sometimes find the time to work on tcc for a bit and then drift back to
being passive members of the group again.

It's the kind of involvement I'm most likely to offer -- I do know
enough about tcc but I don't have the time and energy to hack on it.  I
might be able to get a good two weeks of concentrated effort in some
time in the coming months.  If I do I'll be working on splitting the
code up in separate modules, making the functions shorter, commenting
the code, documenting it, and take a good look at the preprocessor and
the type system.

Am I the only one like that?  I doubt it...

If we can find a good way to make that kind of involvement work, we
should be able to make progress again without having an annointed
maintainer.

> In the long run, I would rather see a few people with CVS commit
> access rather than someone going out on a limb with _another_
> unofficial repository. Plus, another unofficial repository that is
> suddenly abandoned will waste more of the community's time and
> effort.

Depends on how hard it is to include the contents of that repository
into the shared pool of code.  Mercurial gives us a good chance of being
able to opportunistically use people's locally hosted repositories while
they are active without losing anything, without the sweat and hard
work, and without a select group of CVS committers.

We haven't lost Rob's work and wouldn't even if he hadn't just renamed
his repository.  And wouldn't even if his hard disk had crashed.
Distributed repositories worked.

Did the official CVS repository work?

-Peter