Hi Mike, Mike Noyes wrote: > Everyone, > I think my evolution idea has died. My last few attempts to bring new > leaf branches in, or create new ones within our project have failed. The > bering-uclibc team seems to have gained enough support that other > derivations fail to succeed within leaf. We haven't had a new branch in > years. So... > > I propose we move to a monolithic development model, and give > bering-uclibc the leaf name. They won as best of breed. I disagree - the only reason why Bering uClibc seems to be the most popular right now is because there are a few very dedicated people maintaining it (and I'm not including myself - I've had way less time for leaf in the past year or so than I'd like to).
But that doesn't mean that there won't be a new branch soon (wether it's a fork off an existing branch or something completely new). Just like when Bering branched off Dachstein and introduced the 2.4 kernel, it's not unlikely that somebody else will do the same with Bering uClibc (or any of the other branches) to support 2.6 kernel. The only problem that the evolutionary development model has is that it requires a relatively large developer base (it's pretty much impossible for a couple of people to develop/maintain/support several different branches) and it seems we've not been able to attract enough developers to support more than two branches at any given time. But that doesn't mean that it cannot or will not happen. Just my point of view Martin ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
