Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:32:00AM -0500, Curtis W. Rendon wrote:
> > > > We need a central source archive, anyway.
> > >
> > > In my experience, a mailing list archive serves this purpose well
> > > enough.  [Why I object to CVS: it creates a warm cozy filling that
> > > things are settled up.  This filling is counterproductive - e.g.,
> > > since it is wrong. ;-]
> 
> s/filling/feeling/g, sorry...
> 
> > A mail archive won't substitute for a code library, nor will it keep up
> > with code modifications.
> 
> Do not know what you mean.  If it can't "keep up", then the whole idea
> is ruined, since *all* the patches are supposed to be viewed by the
> mailing list.  [And I do not know what is "a code library" in the
> context of discussion of EMX updates.]

A code library is the central repository so that whomever is to generate
object libraries can get from the code library (CVS,RCS,whatever) a
designated group of source for the build that has been declared to all
be of the same version. A revision control system makes it easier to
manage, and revert if needed, than multiple directories of versions.

> 
> Having CVS makes a couple of operations quickier, but not much.  As
> far as it is kept as a *support tool*, it is fine.  However, IMO, it
> should not be considered as the primary modus operandi - this nourishes
> wrong expectations and misguided priorities.
> 

I think we are actually in agreement. I do not propose *online* CVS for
distribution of code patches either. I agree that I prefer the patches
to be on the mailing list. I was thinking in terms of tools for the "Oh
High Maintainer of the Libraries".

Curtis

-- 
Curtis W. Rendon -- mithra-ogEGBHC/[email protected]
                    www.realtime.net/~mithra    [email protected] 
                   
A long memory is the most subversive idea in America.

S@H: 2666 @ 66974