Sorry I don't have a lot of time this week. I did want to say, I in no
way wanted to discourage you or anyone from working on QS code.
I was merely commenting on my own perceived stability of versions for
(mostly new) users to make use of. And I recall saying several times
the newer versions fixed some things and broke others (like my Current
Application Proxy Hide mouse trigger). Also you had said you didn't
have a lot of time for QS so people having problems with the newer
version I thought would have fewer resources for help.
I'm another programmer with little cocoa experience and have wanted to
dive into the code. I appreciate all the cleanup you had done, that's
certainly a help for everyone. In a couple of weeks I may have more
time to dive in and will have to evaluate where best to put the time.
To me, the most annoying thing about QSB is that while I thought the
QS main trunk was the future of QS, it seems it really is QSB unless
some dev group forms to take over either of the QS code bases.
Howard
On Feb 10, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Etienne Samson wrote:
Hi !
Update from me, as I had been the primary workforce of QS's branch
development ;-). My opinion is that I'm a little sad to see QS
slowly dying, especially since it has been one of the first
application (that I know of) to provide such a powerful integration
with the system. I'm still planning to do some work on QS, but as I
now have a real work ongoing, I can't really afford the time to some
of my others (dare I say "geeky") projects ;-).
What I would like to see (since this thread is so aptly named), is
some kind of discussion about QS's future, if there are people
willing to give some help in development (because this is what I
tried to do, but failed, for some reasons I'll try to explain
thereafter), and try to move on.
There have been several shortcoming with my developments : I didn't
have access to QS's own update mechanism. This means that although I
provided some builds from my work, very few people have found them,
and this meant people kept refiling bugs I had fixed in the branch.
I also had a few issues with Howard stating "stick with the last
official build" (that's not against you, but I could have understood
it as "you're doing this for nothing since nobody will use your
build", and I had a hard time with this ;-)).
I guess I also went overthrown with some of my changes (I tried to
fix some of the ugly stuff, like the wierd class hierarchy around
QSCommand (which seems it was added after, while providing the main
object/action/argument paradigm, which is the base of QS), tweaking
the ranking system (means it doesn't match as well as it does
between ß54 and ß55a*).
Now I'm wondering on what can be done, we could continue working on
QS ß54/55, or try to complete the trunk version and release QS
"v2" (since we could call the ß54 series "v1"), but this has some
pitfalls :
The plugin system in incompatible, this means that every plugin from
(what I'll call v1 from now) will need to be updated for v2. There
are numerous unimplemented stuff in Crucible, and stuff that needs
to be updated (no triggers, or at least need to be checked, since
Alcor wanted to provide that as a system-wide Preference Panel,
allowing for a trigger that could launch QS).
I'm not really against ditching v1 totally in favor of the new
architecture, because that means I can restart a development cycle
(I had been breaking people's triggers file while trying to fix
encapsulated triggers).
Opinions ?
Etienne
