Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

[Ole J. B. <ole...@ya...>]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 01:35:03 +0200, M Rawash <mr...@gm...> wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 00:57 +0200, Ole Jørgen Brønner wrote:
>> >> Couple questions:
>> >> 1. Are we basing the fork on ion-3 stable, and not the development branch (ion-3plus)?
>> >> I'm not really sure how much differences there is, but are there reasons not to base it on the development branch? (ion-3plus seems quite stable to me)
>> >
>> > ion-3plus does not include libtu and libextl, which means they need to
>> > be compiled separately before you can compile notion. ion-3 resembles
>> > more what what notion should look like when it's released, and we can
>> > always add ion-3plus' changes later.
>>
>> Well, I'd say it's easier (not any job at all really) to add libtu and
>> libextl to ion-3plus than backporting the changes from ion-3plus
>> later. (I guess that would involve more license complications too?)
>
> the separate libtu and libextl are missing their makefiles, and
> considering that all the work can be done with one patch application,
> i'd say it's about the same, also both versions have the same licence so
> i wouldn't worry about complications.
>

I have versions with makefiles:
http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/repos/libextl-3/Makefile
http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/ion3/repos/libtu-3/Makefile

To make a patch apply the same name changes need to be done in ion-3plus too though

I've attached what should be the new changes in ion-3plus. So it's not that much.
To big to attach: http://folk.ntnu.no/bronner/temp/new-changes-in-ion-3plus-detailed.txt

If we are planning to continue using darcs it will be nice to have the old history available. (well, even if the scm is changed that could be useful)


- Ole Jørgen Brønner