Re: Re: [PATCH+] CLISP support for telent-clx

"Evgeny M. Zubok" <[email protected]> writes:

> Christophe Rhodes <[email protected]> writes:
>
> I made the small error. Patch:

Right, thanks.  (More discussion below)

>> To explain: the exception for SBCL is because I am involved in SBCL
>> development and use CLX with it on a daily basis, and so I am in a
>> position to test and verify it there -- I simply don't have time to
>> perform release engineering tasks on platforms that I don't use.  If
>> you are willing to provide support for clisp, you might wish to make
>> simultaneous releases of clx with clisp releases.
>
> I'm also using SBCL but sometimes runing CLISP. clisp-clx will be merged
> into main CLISP tree and will be syncronized with main clx tree as often
> as possible. 
>
> My oppinion. I think that implementation-oriented development of clx by
> splitting it into different implementation-oriented trees across the
> world is not good idea. This is unnecessary dispersion of maintainer's
> efforts. Some good changes in one tree can be ommited in other. A
> structure of CLX allows us to provide implementation-depended part
> (small and relatively easy to 
> update) and implementation-independed part (which grows these days). But
> release announcement policy can be implementation-oriented.
>
> What repository do I need to be oriented: telent or yours? One place for
> CLX development would be better, I think.

At least my idea of clx development is that there is no one central
repository in which all the development takes place.  Instead,
interested parties set up darcs repositories, make them publically
readable, announce their locations, and then do the development that
interests them; they can also cherry-pick patches from other darcs
repositories as and when they need or want them, and announce
particularly substantial pieces of development or bug fixing on the
mailing list.  There's a list of darcs repositories on the cliki page
(<http://www.cliki.net/CLX>), though I suspect that's out of date -- I
think Franz has one (which may be unofficial), and I think Bryan
O'Connor no longer does.

If there were one person or team of people who were motivated and
committed to CLX development and maintenance, then it might make sense
to have one central repository, with the attendant quality-assurance
and release processes that are expected, but I don't think there is;
the number of people doing development is extremely limited, and I
know of no-one who actually wants to do release engineering for more
than one platform.

So that's why I think the distributed model of development stands more
of a chance of working, with coordination through this mailing list;
now that we have tools that assist in distributed version control
(such as darcs) it is plausible to work in this way, I think -- though
I'm still feeling my way here.

Cheers,

Christophe

_______________________________________________
Portable-clx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.metacircles.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/portable-clx
See http://www.cliki.net/clx for darcs URL(s)