Tomas.Matousek at microsoft.com
Mon Oct 25 17:17:32 EDT 2010
Makes sense. That seems like a goodness and I guess we should evolve the repo that way. Let's keep everything working and get there one step at a time. It doesn't feel like something that would be critical to do right now though.
From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jb Evain
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 1:03 PM
To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Contributing?
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Tomas Matousek <Tomas.Matousek at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 2) It might be possible to split the repo to 3 parts – IronRuby
> specific, IronPython specific, and DLR, make a submodule for each and
> combine those submodules into “DynamicLanguages” repo. So what’s
> exactly the effective difference among the repo built this way and 1)?
The difference is that it then becomes easier for people that are only interested in either IronPython or IronRuby to track commits. There will be a timeline for each modules. And you get to follow the ones you're interested in. And if you're only interested in one, your timeline isn't «polluted» with comments or commits from the others.
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
More information about the Ironruby-core