[rtg] 0.74 vs. 0.81

[Steve Scaffidi]

On 5/25/06, bill fumerola <billf at mu.org> wrote:

> i'd rather see the rtg development model improve rather than fork. yrtg
> was as close to a fork as i wanted to get. community support should just
> be that. if you think i'm surly now, envision me getting 20 individual
> mails about "my" version/patch of rtg all with the same question or
> having two or three "rtg mailing lists" none of which are related or
> share archives and having to answer questions on all of them. and so on.


Good point.  Admittedly, I set up a sourceforge site simply because I
could...  But after thinking about the possibilities for putting rtg to
work, I came up with an idea to collect some of the best stuff and offer a
simplified/streamlined process to set it up and use it. Something a
pointy-haired boss could like.

i'd rather see decisions made based on technical merit centrally on this
> list (the rtg-devel list seems stillborn) rather than adopting the linux
> model of different distributions. worse yet: rtg-0.81+yrtg+billfmodz.


Eeew. I agree - forking rtg could cause chaos, and probably jeopardize
future progress. Either way, I'd like to eventually put together some Debian
packages of my stuff, and (after asking the rbeverly et al.) rtg. Of course,
I'd respect any objections.

for someone who never has used cvs you sure picked up quickly :)


Google is my second brain. Sometimes my only brain. :p
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gizmo.fireflynetworks.com/pipermail/rtg/attachments/20060525/e1732dd1/attachment-0001.htm