At 10:19 AM +1000 on 2/5/00, Paul Sutton wrote:
>>>Adrian: What needs to happen is a change from
>>>"Uli's XBF" to "The OpenCard Group's XBF".
>
>>Anthony: But ultimately, Uli will know XBF best, and will proabably
>>be the one
>>accepting patches to it. Same with me and Interpreter.
>
>Adrian: I disagree. I would hope that FreeCard lasts much longer than
>any of it's founding members involvemnt.
Some of us could be involved for a while. But if one of us did
disapear, then someone else would take over that part.
>Also, the code base should
>change over time so that eventually almost none of the original code will
>be left. If Uli isn't working on XBF he won't know this new code best.
Some of the code may change, but the core stuff and the architecture
will stay the same. No one will try and fundamentally redisign the
Interpreter or XBF with a patch. They'd submit a whole new interepter
or file system. In which case, they'd know it best.
>
>Adrian: Finally, it is up to the group to accept patches to the groups
>distribution of FreeCard.
FreeCard will become too big for that.
>Adrian: I know this argument may seem redundant but I feel it is
>important that we work together as a team, rather than just a group of
>individuals. If we can achieve that, work will progress faster and
>better.
FreeCard will become quite large. Consider all the different subparts
of FreeCard: The interpreter, the file system, the UI, the (many)
distributed stacks, etc. One person can _not_ handle knowing the
workings of the entire thing. We _must) have different people
responsible for different things.
I don't think our goal is to build a little app, like SimpleText. Or
even a big one.
Toss in a boot loader, and we have a operating system. We must see it
that way. No one would argue that Linus should review every patch to
every program that runs on Linux. Neither should we.
Please note that I'm not saying that it is my interpreter or Uli's XBF
in the sense that only he may use it, but rather that he is the one who
is maintaining it.
