Fly Man writes: *> and my -1 was meant to say "Please do not put things that no one knows about in OpenSim"*
+1 for that -1. :-) Your point applies to all FOSS code of course, not just Opensim. Undocumented or minimally documented code is a liability, not an asset, even if it's a million lines of alleged "awesomeness". The D/C ratio is not a perfect metric, but when it's near zero then you know that there's a problem. On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Fly Man <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me answer most questions that have been shooting up in my personal > mailbox which have to do with Opensim as a project. > > I'll start with perhaps the most easy part of the discussion: AuroraSim. > > AuroraSim is a derivated from OpenSim, forked on the 14th of October 2010 > after Rev (RevolutionSmythe) decided that Opensim wasn't going into the way > he personally had seen. He decided to fork the Opensim tree and renamed it > to AuroraSim. In the years following he upgraded parts of the source-code > and added a set of new functional code parts knows as the aaFunctions. > > These functions are based on the code that he wrote at that moment for the > AuroraSim branch. Remember, this is an OLDER copy of what the current > Opensim branch is now. Most of the functions in there won't ever work in > Opensim mainly because Opensim does not have these older hooks. > > In 2013 Rev was done with his education and decided to start working which > brought AuroraSim to a slower moving branch and patches weren't applied > instantly anymore. The last patch that was applied to the sourcecode was > Jan 2014 and the project slowly died. > > So, currently there's no maintainer of any of the code that was/is in > AuroraSim other then what is currently in that GitHub repository. > > Now here comes the part which Kevin already mentioned: "The fork is called > WhiteCore" > > Indeed, WhiteCore is a fork of AuroraSim after I personally saw what was > happening to AuroraSim. I had been watching the slow pace for a longer > period of time and already had found 2 other people that had the same > "issue". So in December 2013 AuroraSim was forked and re-based as > WhiteCoreSim. > > Currently in development with 2 other developers, I am 1 of the 3 lead > developers that actively maintain that "fork" although it's not even close > to what the endgoal for it will be. > > 1 thing that we broke "on purpose" when we changed the name is the > aaFunctions because only Rev knows exactly how they are meant to work. At > the moment there's no other person who knows what exactly the functions are > meant to do other then a better way to have NPC's spawn and some basic > functions that mimic the osFunctions. > > Conclusion: There's no developer at the moment that can look into Rev's > head from a distance and ask him how the functions are meant to work (if > they still work at all) and my -1 was meant to say "Please do not put > things that no one knows about in OpenSim" > > > > 2015-05-27 1:58 GMT+02:00 Dahlia Trimble <[email protected]>: > >> Just to clarify on the slight chance it was missed, I wasn't suggesting >> anyone "fork off" in any sense of the term. Many forks, both public and >> private, already exist and I suspect more will come about. My hope is that >> the community will survuve and even thrive beyond any code fork. >> >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Morgaine <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Dahlia writes: >>> *> I'd like to see disagreement and forks as a means to drive innovation >>> rather than conflict.* >>> >>> More often than not, real project forking into separate projects (not >>> just forking in the github sense) implies an inability or lack of desire to >>> find a meeting of minds with technical peers. >>> >>> If requirements are dramatically different then project forking can be a >>> very reasonable way forward, and to the benefit of everybody. But if the >>> requirements are really quite similar then forking is more likely an >>> indication of inflexibility and intransigence by one or both parties. The >>> communal engineering process has probably failed. >>> >>> This is a technical project, so it's inherently different to discussing >>> the merits of cat pictures -- discussions can be objective. A rationally >>> presented suggestion or even a strong criticism presented in good faith is >>> not a reason for telling people to fork off. If that is the response then >>> it's a sign of extreme project ill health. >>> >>> Negative feedback is intrinsic to good engineering, and all good >>> engineers embrace it. That's not theoretical. Without it a project's >>> direction would never change to take into consideration the bitter lessons >>> of experience. >>> >>> Morgaine. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Dahlia Trimble < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Apparently there is still a fair bit of passion about this platform and >>>> I prefer to see this in a manner where people can use the code in a way >>>> they see fit and to (hopefully) contribute back something or pay it forward >>>> in other ways as appropriate. I'm not opposed to forks but I'd hope civil >>>> discourse can be maintained even through the times when much disagreement >>>> looms. I would hope that various forks and branches could benefit from each >>>> other and the community as a whole can thereby benefit. I'd like to see >>>> disagreement and forks as a means to drive innovation rather than conflict. >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Morgaine < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Good data, thanks Cinder. It doesn't look like death to me. >>>>> >>>>> You clearly have some elite query-foo skills, can you generate a >>>>> historical list of commits per month and per year? This is a very strong >>>>> way of debunking allegations of death! :P >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Cinder Roxley < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On May 26, 2015 at 2:59:54 PM, Morgaine ( >>>>>> [email protected]) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm just an observer on this project, albeit a very long term one, >>>>>> dating back to near the beginning. One thing that long-term observers >>>>>> are >>>>>> well qualified to do is to confirm or to deny the veracity of allegations >>>>>> of long-term trends. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Chase's allegation that >>>>>> >>>>>> "OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect" >>>>>> >>>>>> is clearly unfounded since commits show no sign of stopping. I >>>>>> haven't checked the rate of commits so perhaps Mike has more information >>>>>> in >>>>>> this regard. I welcome better information. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.openhub.net/p/opensimulator/commits/summary >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Cinder Roxley >>>>>> Sent with Airmail >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Opensim-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Opensim-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensim-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
