Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: CVS repository synchronization for RefTeX

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2007-01-07) writes:

>>> Ralf, you are basically arguing for taking over RefTeX maintenance
>>> yourself, using Arch, and not in connection with AUCTeX.
>>
>> No, I'm not.  Savannah features support for public Arch archives
>> which could be used similarly to CVS.  Thus, all developers could
>> participate just like the do with CVS now.
>
> My proposal was about moving RefTeX into AUCTeX's repository.

Could you please be more specific?  Do you mean to create a new module
at the same level as the `auctex' module or do you meant to put RefTeX
into its own folder below `auctex'?

> Not
> about creating a different repository on Savannah where things would
> be maintained independently.
>
> You are now proposing something different.

Assuming we give RefTeX its own module in CVS I don't see much of a
difference between that and giving RefTeX its own Arch repository.
With the CVS approach you'll need a separate check-out as well.  It's
not like a `cvs up' in the `auctex' folder will spew out RefTeX.

>> Can be used with Emacs 21.
>
> I don't want to reply on version control systems for AUCTeX that don't
> work out of the box with Emacs versions that can be reasonably
> expected to be used by testers/developers.  It is an additional
> hurdle.

It's a one-time effort which could spare you a lot of work in the long
run.  But I'm repeating myself.

>> But that might just be the cause of me not looking hard enough for
>> instructions.  Updating a working directory through Emacs is
>> probably a more relevant use case for pretesters, but one which
>> could easily be solved as well by using the client binary for the
>> version control system.
>
> Ralf, we are not talking about keeping a bunch of dedicated developers
> by having them jump only through a moderate number of hoops.
>
> At the current point of time, you have not even played with Arch at
> all, yet you propose putting all of RefTeX under it and not put it in
> AUCTeX.

No, I'm not!  I think I made it clear that I first want to look more
closely at Arch in order to make an informed decision.  I just want to
prevent a premature decision towards CVS.  The stuff I've already
learned about Arch just gave me a bit of cannon fodder I could use in
the discussion.  That's all.

> This discussion is not going anywhere at this point of time.

Right.  I'm glad you articulated this because I've come to the same
conclusion.

-- 
Ralf