Hi Matt,

2011/8/14 mattschinkel <[email protected]>:
> We need a proper, agreeable way to upgrade libraries.
I fully agree - this is why I posted my message.

> In the case of this library, it is to comply with current SPI standards.
...
> There are good reasons to update a library:
> 1. Most people agree on the change.
> 2. Comply with a standard.

2 is just a shift of the issue, since we'll have to debate the
applicable standards and the libraries they apply to. You demonstrate
this nicely  with the remark about SPI standards ;)

1 is a call for democracy, but I doubt this is the best way. Many will
be indifferent about a particular change and quite a few conservative.
Also, people might attibute different values to specific aspects. I
use many older 16F pics, so memory efficiency is more important for me
than someone using large chips. Imagine the significance to someone
having an installed base of hundereds of controllers...
Anyway - the two with the strongest opionion will probably be the one
who want to put effort into the change and the creator (who probably
use the library often).

But most importantly, you ignores any rights the original author has
over the code contributed. Many of us write libraries we use ourselves
in many projects. We comply to the jallib standards and share the code
with the community. In return, you don't have to execute your own
version and distribution control over the files and others help in
finding (and sometimes even fixing) bugs. If at any day someone might
change the libraries in which they require extra effort (or worse),
this might not be such a good deal...

So if you want to put it in rules:

1. libraries won't be changed when the original author objects.
2. libraries won't be significantly changed (different behaviour,
structure, algorithm,memory/cpu use) without previous aquired
permission from the original author.
3. if there is no permission and there is still a requirement, a new
library (different name) can be created. (this could be a good way to
prove the new lib is better and get permission later on).
4. the benevolent dictator can decide to ignore the rules above and
have a lib replaced or - when there is a good, proven alternative
available for some time - have it marked obsolete.

Joep

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"jallib" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.

Reply via email to