On 10/29/11 09:20, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> Of course I want to establish some kind of control. Mostly quality
> control. Having invested a lot of effort in the project I care about
> it not getting ruined.
I don't want to see the project I started and have spent much time
fund raising for get ruined either. I've invested many years of effort
working in Gnash, including all of last year full-time for zero
compensation. Some of your past ideas on quality control, ie...
reverting all of my commits were not useful. If you want total control,
fork Gnash, and do your own thing instead of trying to push me off a
project I've put so much time and energy into. I still do some Gnash
work every day...
Our problem isn't so much one of quality as differing development
styles. I'm much more the rapid prototyping type of person, and I think
that's what you object to. I prefer to make multiple passes over code,
improving it each time, instead of striving for some obscure level of
perfection out of the box. My coding style has served me well over the
34 years I've been a programmer.
> We never fought about money allocation so far, only about technical
> issues (which I'm more concerned about).
I agreed with you about a committee to only handle any decisions over
allocating any funds the FSF would raise. It's turning that committee
into something else that I can't agree with. At the same time I see an
inability to make even simple decisions anymore without drama, and
potential difficulties in figuring out how to handle any funds. The
advantages of using PubSoft like we have been is that we don't have to
agree on anything, it's between the developer and the donor.
Thinking of funding, there is still the $1400 for AVM2 (of which I
contributed $350 cause of taxes) which still has no takers. Lack of any
form of AVM2 support is making Gnash irrelevant...
- rob -
_______________________________________________
Gnash-dev mailing list
Gnash-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
