michael.letterle at gmail.com
Mon Oct 25 14:26:59 EDT 2010
My only comment on the sites:
1) github = source control,
2) rubyforge = mailing list,
3) codeplex = issue tracker/binary distro,
4) ironruby.net = documentaiton
1 and 2 are pretty set, I see no reason to change from them.
3 is probably fine as well, though having source control and issue
tracking in one location may be desirable.
4) Using gh-pages is an interesting idea, is ironruby.net being hosted
at Microsoft's expense or one of the team members? That would
probably have some bearing on that. Regardless, I'd rather see a nice
README first. :)
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Mike Moore <blowmage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think this would be too difficult to work around. There is already
> some process that replicates changes from the IronPython's CodePlex repo to
> IronRuby's GitHub repo. If the current monolithic project structure were
> broken up into submoldules, you could have just IronPython's CodePlex being
> replicated to an IronPython git repo.
This I agree with. The current repo structure is counter-intuitive IMHO.
More information about the Ironruby-core