On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 18:49 +0200, Simeon Völkel wrote: > Hanno Böck wrote: > > Is there any statement from HV if there'll be any back-merging? > > > > HV stated quite clearly that they don't want to spent much bandwidth > to do that, as they want to focus on their interests which shifted a > bit. > > > It's probably not the best idea to keep two completely separate trees and > > try > > to merge stuff in rare cases. Though isn't there a chance to coordinate > > development again? > > Their interest in having one single tree is quite small, as they > don't want to focus on patches, bugfixes or just minor improve- > ments they don't need at the moment. > > According to Adam the best option to contribute at the moment is to > copy their work into Cinelerra CV instead of the other way round. > > I haven't found a definite statement whether there will be a larger > back-merging or not. In recent years a few fixes have been merged > back while a lot were either ignored or rejected. > > There are some statements from HV which express as well, that > there is no close co-operation, but rather a loose connection > between them and Cinelerra CV. > > > Simeon
Ok, it is clear - as it was before - that HV is not interested in active cooperation. What has CV4 that CV2 is missing and is really required? Can't we just incorporate those functions? Because, merging is not a nice job, knowing that there are probably a lot of errors again from HV and from the merging process. Frans _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
