At 08:35 AM 11/4/02 -0500, TenThumbs wrote:
>Well it turned out to be a disaster.
>
Regardless of the details, at the heart of this is an expression
of frustration that we should all take to heart.
Instructions like "build x lisp only from CVS with version n of gcc
but not version m before you build version z of maxima" etc. makes
me think we are moving in a way that's getting a little out of hand.
It's ok for the core developers (perhaps), but for the "outside" world I think
a bit more classic version control may be in order. Use the sourceforge
bug lists for the discussion of bugs and do more incremental releases
even if they contain known bugs. What we have been calling "release
candidates" are really minor releases and it would be nice to have
them tagged as such in the CVS.
Perhaps one of the problems is that we are miximg intro/devleopers/math/GUI
subjects into one mailing list: "Get x from CVS" should never appear on a
non-developer's list, IMHO, and when it does, the time has come to break up
the list.
I suggest something like
maxima-announce
maxima-users
maxima-developers
maxima-cvs
maxima-ui
as a breakup of this list. It can be broken up into the sourceforge
mailing lists which are now gatewayed both directions into sourceforge
newsgroups. Newsgroups I find much easier to read.
Just my 2 cents worth, but I think it's important we listen to the
tone of frustration.
Mike.