Re: a meta name for axiom, open.axiom, fricas. was: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [#55] Axiom doesn't run on Windows

[root]

>I believe that is what nearly everyone wants. However I am not sure if
>this is what Tim wants since he specifically invited both Waldek and
>Gaby to create forks when they could not come to some agreement about
>basic development methodology and the future of the project. And the
>current argument over names seems to further distance Axiom from these
>forks.

At it again, eh, Bill? As I recall my position it was that the branches
were created to develop diff-Naur patches against the trunk. SVN was
created to allow that to happen. The purpose of "build-improvements"
was to develop PATCHES/CHANGESETS so they could be applied to trunk,
moving trunk to the autoconf mechanism (thus the name).

What actually happened was that the branches were being promoted,
especially by you, as "better alternatives". I complained about such
behavior. Either you are using a branch to develop changes for everyone
or you are using a branch to develop a fork.

The behavior I actually saw seemed to be the latter case. I did not see
patches developed on branches being diff-Naur'ed for trunk. What I saw
was you advocating the use of the branches as a replacement for trunk.

I specifically asked Gaby to do an autoconf changeset and I
specifically told him that I was holding up another changeset (the
name downcase) so it would no impact his work. He suggested I continue
my changes. In the end, no diff-Naur changes for autoconf ever came
out of "build-improvements".

I know of no other open source project (or closed source for that matter)
that suggests throwing away the trunk for a branch. It appears from his
email that Gaby was also involved in the GCC/EGCS fork so this is not
the first time he's forked a project.




I do notice that you seem to be quoting my opinions again.
Would you like me to set up a branch for you to maintain my alternate opinions?

Tim