On Monday, June 26, 2023 at 10:09:17 AM UTC-4 jkn wrote:
If the former, I'm wondering how 'upstream' work on Leo gets incorporated. If the latter, I'm curious about the process... Keeping two code bases synchronized is nearly impossible in the long run. Each one evolves in its own way, and the second is almost always some revisions behind the first. I remember reading an article years ago about an US Air Force effort to see if a particular newer methodology for software development was superior the their existing process. The USAF got convinced to have a team try to duplicate an existing system, which I think (IIRC) was a fire control module for a particular jet fighter. The team got to work, but by the time they had it working, the module in use had evolved new capability. The team was never able to catch up with the version in use. So the test of methodologies was never able to be completed, and no product was ever produced with its results. Leo may not be as complicated, but the principle remains. And as LeoJS gets into use, its users will start wanting and adding new features that aren't in Leo itself. The two products will diverge over time. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just the way things work. The more that new features can be added as plugins, the less the cores will tend to diverge. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/ebdf93ca-8305-4ed9-afec-0763f37d233fn%40googlegroups.com.
