cclan-list

[cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Gary K. <gw...@me...>]

Are there good reasons to keep ASDF on sourceforge?

If not, then what do folks think about moving it to common-lisp.net?

thanks,
--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Daniel H. <dhe...@te...>]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Gary King wrote:

> Are there good reasons to keep ASDF on sourceforge?

The email archive?
http://asdf.sourceforge.net/ ? ;)


> If not, then what do folks think about moving it to common-lisp.net?

Sounds fine to me.

Either way, I'd recommend joining the DVCS club:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090107-dvcs-adoption-is-soaring-among-open-source-projects.html

CVS was never fun; its much less so now that we have better tools.

- Daniel

P.S.  Is telent.net still operational?  It never works for me, but its 
advertised on http://cclan.sourceforge.net/

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[GP l. <fp...@cl...>]

   Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:57:00 -0500 (EST)
   From: Daniel Herring <dhe...@te...>

   > If not, then what do folks think about moving it to common-lisp.net?

   Sounds fine to me.

   Either way, I'd recommend joining the DVCS club:

   CVS was never fun

Actually, I'm rather tired of the current "but it's better" nonsense
on version control systems.  I've heard a dozen names now, and most of
that crap is hard to maintain and disappears quick to the next-new-kid
on the block.  I suppose that the illusion of having a 'real
up-to-date rvcs' makes up for a lack of progress elsewhere.

A old well-worn tool has little problem amongst the users of some
software, it makes it easy to obtain.  Some new tool that will be dead
next week makes sure that software dies.  If the purpose of software
improvement is to increase acceptance among the userbase, then making
the software easy to obtain is rather important.


[1] for instance, currently Subversion is broken here, since it
requires a version of Neon that breaks some important software.  Great
job!  Neon is apparently a piece of shit that has zero backwards
compatibility, and that ranks Subversion for me too.  Over the past
few years, it's gotten to the point that discovering some new software
package has yet-another-rcvs in use usually results dropping interest.

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Gary K. <gw...@me...>]

Hey,

> Actually, I'm rather tired of the current "but it's better" nonsense
> on version control systems.  I've heard a dozen names now, and most of
> that crap is hard to maintain and disappears quick to the next-new-kid
> on the block.  ...
> Some new tool that will be dead
> next week makes sure that software dies.


I agree with your conclusions but not your premises <smile>. Many of  
the dvcs tools have been around for a long time (in software years),  
are used by zillions of people and work much better than CVS for lots  
and lots of use cases. OTOH, I no longer see the point of Subversion  
since it, at least, is not better enough than CVS.

If you do decide to move and do decide to use a DVCS, then I'd vote  
that we use git (I'm personally a big darcs fan but bit has much  
greater momentum, is "more" cross-platform and is building a bigger  
echo-system, ummm, ecosystem.) Other thoughts?

--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Robert G. <rpg...@si...>]

Gary King wrote:
> Hey,
> 
>> Actually, I'm rather tired of the current "but it's better" nonsense
>> on version control systems.  I've heard a dozen names now, and most of
>> that crap is hard to maintain and disappears quick to the next-new-kid
>> on the block.  ...
>> Some new tool that will be dead
>> next week makes sure that software dies.
> 
> 
> I agree with your conclusions but not your premises <smile>. Many of  
> the dvcs tools have been around for a long time (in software years),  
> are used by zillions of people and work much better than CVS for lots  
> and lots of use cases. OTOH, I no longer see the point of Subversion  
> since it, at least, is not better enough than CVS.

I'd have to disagree with you here.  I have come to love SVN.  The
ability to move files, the notion that commits are coherent changesets,
rather than onesy-twosy mods to single files that are difficult to
coordinate ex post facto without the aid of tags, and the improvements
to tagging and branching put it head and shoulders above CVS.  And since
the interface is almost identical to CVS's, the changeover involves
little or no training.
> 
> If you do decide to move and do decide to use a DVCS, then I'd vote  
> that we use git (I'm personally a big darcs fan but bit has much  
> greater momentum, is "more" cross-platform and is building a bigger  
> echo-system, ummm, ecosystem.) Other thoughts?

I feel crotchety in the same way GP lisper does, not so much because I
dislike DVCS per se, but because of the babel of DVCS's.  bazaar, git,
arch, darcs, what a pain.  It annoys me when the ratio of the number of
different DVCS's I need to know to the number of packages I actively
modify gets too close to one.  Especially when these things are
significantly more complicated to use than a standard VCS.  If git drove
the rest off the map (or way out in the periphery), then the changeover
would be a lot more appealing....

On a project by project basis, I think it would be nice to achieve the
following level of rationality:  (1) admit that the use of DVCS's come
at a higher cost in terms of complexity (how significant the cost is
depends on the community --- e.g., to linux kernel hackers, the cost
would be essentially zero because it's already been paid); (2) consider
what benefit a DVCS offers in exchange for the higher complexity cost
and (3) roughly speaking, subtract (1) from (2), and use that to inform
the decision.

cheers,
r

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Gary K. <gw...@me...>]

Hi Robert,

As someone who never used subversion, I stand corrected (actually, I'm  
sitting). Now that you mention these features, I do remember that they  
are big win over CVS. I think the half-formed thought I was recalling  
was that now that good dvcs systems are here, moving from CVS to  
subversion seems like too small a step. I.e., that if one is going to  
move away from CVS, then it would be better to move to some DVCS.

> I feel crotchety in the same way GP lisper does, not so much because I
> dislike DVCS per se, but because of the babel of DVCS's.  bazaar, git,
> arch, darcs, what a pain.  It annoys me when the ratio of the number  
> of
> different DVCS's I need to know to the number of packages I actively
> modify gets too close to one.

Oh yes. I strongly agree. Sometimes it's "I want to try X but I'll be  
damned if I'm going to install another DVCS."

> On a project by project basis, I think it would be nice to achieve the
> following level of rationality:  (1) admit that the use of DVCS's come
> at a higher cost in terms of complexity (how significant the cost is
> depends on the community --- e.g., to linux kernel hackers, the cost
> would be essentially zero because it's already been paid); (2)  
> consider
> what benefit a DVCS offers in exchange for the higher complexity cost
> and (3) roughly speaking, subtract (1) from (2), and use that to  
> inform
> the decision.

Yes.

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[GP l. <fp...@cl...>]

   From: Gary King <gw...@me...>
   Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:39:55 -0500

   > Actually, I'm rather tired of the current "but it's better" nonsense
   > on version control systems.  I've heard a dozen names now, and most of
   > that crap is hard to maintain and disappears quick to the next-new-kid
   > on the block.  ...
   > Some new tool that will be dead
   > next week makes sure that software dies.


   I agree with your conclusions but not your premises <smile>. Many of  

Boy am I surprised ;-)

   the dvcs tools have been around for a long time (in software years),  
   are used by zillions of people and work much better than CVS for lots  
   and lots of use cases. OTOH, I no longer see the point of Subversion  
   since it, at least, is not better enough than CVS.

   If you do decide to move and do decide to use a DVCS, then I'd vote  

ah, I thought YOU were asking, I'm just a run-over bystander

   that we use git (I'm personally a big darcs fan but bit has much  
   greater momentum, is "more" cross-platform and is building a bigger  
   echo-system, ummm, ecosystem.) Other thoughts?

Just one

Please leave a method for those folkes interested in a silly idea,
they just want to utilize the software, not master a rcvs system to
get it.  It used to be that a hyperlink to a tar file download was
pretty common, but recently those have disappeared.
Just include one.

r

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Gary K. <gw...@me...>]

> Please leave a method for those folkes interested in a silly idea,
> they just want to utilize the software, not master a rcvs system to
> get it.  It used to be that a hyperlink to a tar file download was
> pretty common, but recently those have disappeared.
> Just include one.


<possibly-sad-humor>
Hey, if you're not willing to master a host of arcana just to do  
program in Lisp, then why are you here
</possibly-sad-humor>

I completely agree. It's crazy to force folks to get the RCS du jour  
just so that they can try system Z.


--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...>]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Gary King <gw...@me...> wrote:
> Are there good reasons to keep ASDF on sourceforge?
>
> If not, then what do folks think about moving it to common-lisp.net?

Getting this back onto topic...

Since you're the one asking, can you provide your own Pro/Con analysis
-- even if your Con half says just "None that I can see."? :)

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Gary K. <gw...@me...>]

> Since you're the one asking, can you provide your own Pro/Con analysis
> -- even if your Con half says just "None that I can see."? :)

That's a fair point!

Prose to moving

* more Lispy / visible to the CL community
* more control over the hosting environment / easier to use than SF  
(ssh access, etc).

Poetry / cons-cells

* less putative features "out of the box" (though I'm not sure that  
any of the features SF provides are ones that matter because I'm not  
very SF savvy).
* It's a change and change can lead to discontinuities

These are my two cents. I'm about to start a new thread for a larger  
discussion.
--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Robert G. <rpg...@si...>]

Gary King wrote:
>> Since you're the one asking, can you provide your own Pro/Con analysis
>> -- even if your Con half says just "None that I can see."? :)
> 
> That's a fair point!
> 
> Prose to moving
> 
> * more Lispy / visible to the CL community
> * more control over the hosting environment / easier to use than SF  
> (ssh access, etc).
> 
> Poetry / cons-cells
> 
> * less putative features "out of the box" (though I'm not sure that  
> any of the features SF provides are ones that matter because I'm not  
> very SF savvy).
> * It's a change and change can lead to discontinuities

Another potential downside to migration:  Sourceforge is likely to be
more robust than common-lisp.net, just because they're so much bigger, yes?

Best,
r

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Robert G. <rpg...@si...>]

Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Gary King <gw...@me...> wrote:
>> Are there good reasons to keep ASDF on sourceforge?
>>
>> If not, then what do folks think about moving it to common-lisp.net?
> 
> Getting this back onto topic...
> 
> Since you're the one asking, can you provide your own Pro/Con analysis
> -- even if your Con half says just "None that I can see."? :)
> 

One of the issues from my correspondence with Gary leading up to this
was that the people who are administrators for the Sourceforge project
may no longer wish to be performing that task.  Reading between the
lines, if Gary is going to take more of that role, he might be more
comfortable doing it on c-l.net.

best,
r

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...>]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Robert Goldman <rpg...@si...> wrote:

> One of the issues from my correspondence with Gary leading up to this
> was that the people who are administrators for the Sourceforge project
> may no longer wish to be performing that task.

If this is the case, then it is best stated out loud in public. (Or at
least verified from the individuals involved, instead of assuming so.)

> Reading between the
> lines, if Gary is going to take more of that role, he might be more
> comfortable doing it on c-l.net.

Ditto.

Apropos, I was moderately surprised to discover that Richard Kreuter
doesn't hold the CCLAN commit bit currently.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Gary K. <gw...@me...>]

> One of the issues from my correspondence with Gary leading up to this
> was that the people who are administrators for the Sourceforge project
> may no longer wish to be performing that task.  Reading between the
> lines, if Gary is going to take more of that role, he might be more
> comfortable doing it on c-l.net.


P.S., Just to be clear(er). I'm interested in helping maintain and  
improve ASDF but don't want to pull it from anyone else's control or  
idea of what it is  and should be. ASDF is an important tool and needs  
community consensus. If I do do more, I would rather it was on cl.net.

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Robert G. <rpg...@si...>]

Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Robert Goldman <rpg...@si...> wrote:
> 
>> One of the issues from my correspondence with Gary leading up to this
>> was that the people who are administrators for the Sourceforge project
>> may no longer wish to be performing that task.
> 
> If this is the case, then it is best stated out loud in public. (Or at
> least verified from the individuals involved, instead of assuming so.)

I have verified this from Christophe (he had thought that he was no
longer a cclan admin).  I have not spoken to dan_b or stig (I assume the
former is Dan Barlow, I don't know how to dereference the latter).

> 
>> Reading between the
>> lines, if Gary is going to take more of that role, he might be more
>> comfortable doing it on c-l.net.
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> Apropos, I was moderately surprised to discover that Richard Kreuter
> doesn't hold the CCLAN commit bit currently.

Without active participation from a designated sourceforge admin, it's
impossible to give the commit bit to anyone, AFAIK.  Gary has the commit
bit, and has been filtering ASDF patches, but he cannot bless anyone
with this privilege.

I'd suggest that we make sure we have approximately 3 active admins, to
make sure that this kind of thing can be done.

Best,
R

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Christophe R. <cs...@ca...>]

Robert Goldman <rpg...@si...> writes:

>> If this is the case, then it is best stated out loud in public. (Or at
>> least verified from the individuals involved, instead of assuming so.)
>
> I have verified this from Christophe (he had thought that he was no
> longer a cclan admin).  I have not spoken to dan_b or stig (I assume the
> former is Dan Barlow, I don't know how to dereference the latter).

Yeah; my actual response was unprintable.  dan_b is Dan Barlow, stig
is Stig Sandø ("Fufie" on #lisp).  Ah, happy days.

If the decision is taken to stay on Sourceforge, I'll rearrange admin
permissions appropriately, before removing them from myself.  If the
decision is to go elsewhere, then at least I won't have to deal with
the Web Interface From Hell.  Either case is fine with me.

Best,

Christophe

Re: [cclan-list] aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp.net

[Daniel B. <da...@te...>]

Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes:

>  Either case is fine with me.

Ditto.

-dan