Re: [Squeak-VMdev] SourceForge or SqueakForge?

[<gor...@bl...>]

Hi people!

tim Rowledge <ti...@su...> wrote:
> Andreas Raab wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> > 
> > How about having a quick poll so we see what the preferred options are? 
> > Here it goes: You have from +2 to -2 with the obvious meaning (+2: 
> > strongly in favour, +1: in favour, 0: don't care, etc.) Choices right 
> > now are CVS, Subversion (SVN) and Darcs:
> > 
> >                CVS             SVN             Darcs
> > Andreas          +1              +2               -1
> > Bert
> > Goran		    +1          0          +2

My reasoning is something like this:

- Svn doesn't give us anything substantially new, so choosing between
CVS and Svn I say stay in CVS. I mean, why bother?
- Darcs on the other hand actually would give us a model that seems much
more in line with how we work. I think that would be worth trying.

> > Ian
> > John
> > Ned
> > Tim 			+1		+1		-2 (no ROS client) 
> 
> If it is feasible to write a Squeak based client for any of these that 
> doesn't rely on anything tricky (like some obscure ssh tunneling via a 
> wormhole back through two anonymising portals and a pigeon post) then 
> almost anything would be ok.

Could you repeat the reasons for a Squeak client? Was it because of a
lack of SSH on RiscOS?
Darcs seems to only rely on Haskell and I thought I saw that GHC was
available on RiscOS, or is it not?

> Simple to use and get 'about right' is really important to me. CVS was a 
> pain because of all those special cases about 'this operation is not 
> directory recursive' etc wasting time.
> 
> tim

In this case I think Darcs is a great choice - it seems much easier to
use. :)

Btw, in a private email to Ian I managed to point out quite a few good
reasons for Darcs - if it is ok with Ian I can repost it to the list.

regards, Göran