Re: Unstable files/documentation & package formats

On Sunday 07 August 2005 03:52 pm, Raymond Martin wrote:
> > Improving the documentation cannot hurt. New sections are certainly okay.
> > Classifying things as alpha,beta,stable etc. might require reclassifying
> > some of the existing packages (which I would not call stable for lack of
> > active support.)
>
> Perhaps you misunderstood or I was not clear enough, I was referring to
> packages in general and not to the packages as included internally with
> Lush.
>
> So I meant, for one, that it might be good to have betas of documentation
> (since I am doing some work on that) available for download without going
> through CVS. Then users & developers can give feedback on the
> quality/progress made before changes go into CVS proper. I just see it as a
> possible convenience to get it out and iterate through some changes before
> any commits take place.
>
> > The lush development is very incremental. A new release would be right
> > around now because we have a reasonable support for MacOSX.  We could
> > make releases much more often, but it is difficult to choose any
> > particular point...
>
> I understand your point. Basically I was just hoping to get something in
> the documentation revised before a new release. I have completed revision
> of the introduction and I could upload that to sourceforge for everyone and
> then make some improvements/fixes.

I would be in favor of having a "staging" repository for the new
documentation. Since we are using the CVS as the de facto distribution
mechanism, having this new repository would allow us to stage
non-incremental changes in the doc without breaking the consistency of
the CVS version. Once we are happy with a piece of the new doc, we can
merge it into the main CVS. 

> > Other kind of packages could be useful of course. I always recommend
> > using lush cvs, directly compiled from the source directory. Binary
> > packages are a bit alien to that concept. But this is what people expect
> > nowadays.
>
> So what are you saying exactly? Yes, I see you favor going with CVS, but
> would it be okay to Lush available in tar.bz2/zip/RPM/etc. right on
> sourceforge?

Having RPMs (with the appropriate dependencies on libinutils, sdl,
gsl, .....) would certainly simplify the installation process for
a lot of people. 

  -- Yann




-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf