On 21/10/2011 09:36, Simon Pepping wrote:
Hi Simon,
I am pleased to learn that you are also in need of this new
functionality.
I share some of Vincent and Peter's concerns about technical points of
the code. On the other hand, this is the only implementation of
complex scripts we have, created by Glenn, in the style of Glenn. It
is an initial implementation, and it is normal that it requires
further work, maybe even design changes to make it more flexible. Does
keeping it in a branch make that further work easier? Merging it into
trunk will enhance its visibility, and make it available to more
users.
I'm not opposing the merge, I simply saw it as an appropriate milesone
at which to open the debate on our concerns. It feels like we are making
some progress here, so thanks for helping the debate along. I would
really like to see an acknowledgement from Glenn that there are some
imperfections that need addressing. If I saw that then I would give my
full backing, but even without that I would vote +0 for the merge for
the reasons you highlight above.
Thanks,
Chris
Simon
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:02:10PM +0100, Chris Bowditch wrote:
On 19/10/2011 19:32, Simon Pepping wrote:
Hi Simon,
I think you misunderstood my mail. I don't want to stop the merge. I
simply thought it was an appropriate time to discuss some concerns
that Vincent and Peter had identified. You are preaching to the
converted about the need for supporting Complex scripts. It is an
urgent requirement for us too.
If we don't discuss our concerns over the code now, then when do we
discuss it?
Vincent and Peter will be replying to this thread shortly and will
outline their primary concerns then.
Thanks,
Chris
