Re: [Axiom-developer] Active arch branches listed somewhere?

[Tim Daly]

>Given Axiom's trend for doing things the "right way" it would be
>asthetically satisfying if that trend could be continued in the
>development tools, although I grant you that's probably a rather silly
>impulse ;-).  

umm, presuming you think my way is the "right way", which not even *I*
tend to agree with some days :-)

but, yes, i'd like to see some global re-think of the idea of a 
code repository/configure/make. as my programming world gets ever
more complex i'm beginning to identify issues that needs clever
solutions. one issue that is beginning to surface is related to 
Doyen, which is intended to be a scientific platform built on the
LiveCD/Quantian idea. It needs to be able to pull/patch multiple
projects that it does not host. These issues are also there in
Axiom but were never as clear.

In fact, if we take the "30 year horizon" view it is clear that we
need to think about very complex applications that transparently
include customized sub-projects. in the current instance we have
the notion of an "office suite" (openoffice) which really is just
a large number of cooperating applications. a project that includes
many other projects (as Doyen intends) will need more than a code
repository. it will need a "library" system that can pull/patch
whole cross-sections of code.

>Not that I have any experience with Arch, but what OS are you running
>on axiom-developer.org?  I have successfully installed Arch on Debian
>and Gentoo linux (courtesy of their package systems) but I've never
>tried hooking it to the web.  Was the web based part the main problem?

I believe it is a redhat 9 system. The hosting company set it up.
I just buy the service.

I have a new open source lab with two dozen machines I'm configuring.
I'm setting up a web server on one now to try to debug this problem
(which is clearly just a lack of understanding on my part). Once I
get it working locally I'll turn my attention back to axiom-developer.org
and get it working there. Perhaps I can convince a student to undertake
the "library" program problem (but I doubt it; 'tisn't sexy, yaknow?)

>I always thought the model that made sense for the way Tim is working
>is to have the "hard core" server with all the experimental code using
>Arch.  This keeps the casual users from stumbling into it since they
>have to jump the Arch hurdle, but allows the determined to check out
>the lastest stuff.  Savannah seemes like the logical place for the main
>releases, which will not need the complex versioning structure.  In the
>case of Maxima people normally keep local trees for the major work and
>then merge into the main one when things are shaping up.  In this case,
>Tim would merge each tree into the main savannah cvs when it was ready,
>and otherwise keep in in Arch land.  Was that what you were thinking
>Tim?

yes, that's exactly it. i have no plans to change the savannah CVS
site as it is globally known and easy to find. However I'd like to 
encourage more participation (having already given out pieces of code like
hyperdoc to various people) that didn't require me to be the bottleneck.
so a while ago I started unwinding the current code pile I maintain
locally to split out the various interesting pieces into branches.
that way people could hack particular branches independently. the
arch server i set up identified about a dozen separate projects.

t