On 2010-10-22 02:50, Henry Vermaak wrote:
2010/10/21 Adem<listmem...@letterboxes.org>:
On 2010-10-22 01:23, Henry Vermaak wrote:
Did you notice the word 'promises'?
Somehow you have to prove these "promises".
And, how exactly do you expect them to be proved? On paper?
Seriously, if this work was done more co-operatively with the fpc team, it
may have made it. But I think it is too ambitious in the first place. Some
people maintain patch quilts for ages before it makes it into the kernel,
for example.
You make it sound like some of those religious orders where you have to
spend years of your life... just to prove your piety.
I don't care what it "sounds" like to you, I'm pointing you to valid
examples of real features that are complicated and that need to mature
and to evolve, but most of all, need a lot of work before they can
prove that they are worth anything.
OK. Let me take a step back.
You did say, above, "/Seriously, if this work was done more
co-operatively with the fpc team, it may have made it./" which implies
the approach was less than co-operative.
Fine, lest's look at that: Did you notice the response from the core
that --/to the effect, that is/-- the code is 15 years mature and those
who are familiar with it aren't prepared to see things shifted around.
Would you consider this as anything more than an invitation to do --at
best-- cosmetic changes?
Or, let me ask it another way: How would you achieve
co-operativetiveness --other than staying out?
You also said, above, "/But I think it is too ambitious in the first
place./"
Interesting. Unless I am reading this completely wrong, you're not
saying the direction/aim is wrong; just that it is 'too ambitious'.
I would have no qualms with that.
But, expect you to follow it up with something like "among that list, do
this first and let's see how it works, then you could move on to this",
but, definitely not (I hope) something sounding like "don't touch any of
this in more than a couple of lines at a time".
Maybe you thought I sniped back, and hence didn't let you get to that
point --if so, I am sorry--, but I personally would appreciate if you
could do it now.
To implement a complicated feature, you need to break down the
implementation into a lot of patches to make it easy for review.
People aren't going to start accepting your refactoring patches
because you promise them that it'll be worth it in the long run.
What you said is of course true for incremental changes; but not so much
for architectural ones that by necessity result in large changes.
Please take a look at the roadmap for FPC v3.0 here:
http://mantis.freepascal.org/roadmap_page.php where it says "22 of 27
issue(s) resolved. Progress (81%).".
Great. A lot of hardwork is being done and all those doing it are busy.
But, where and how do you discuss things about the general direction,
i.e. architecture questions?
And the reason is, everyone is too busy to spend time discussing things
that are not immediately relevant to a bug or a certain ancillary feature.
--
Cheers,
Adem
_______________________________________________
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
