In what respect did I miss this? Are you implying that it should be possible to add new features that Linden Lab *disagrees* with?
If not, and as you say they don't disagree with VWRAP, then I don't see the issue. VWRAP compatibility falls in category 2, it's a new "feature", hardly anyone here will be even interested in given feedback because it's rather straight forward (add VWRAP compatibility to snowglobe) and that will not change any ones user experience, apart from adding possibilities). LL will say: ok go ahead, and then we can start to implement it. The main reason that I think that LL has the last say in what goes into snowglobe is because they (merov? maybe it should just be merov's call) has to keep syncing the main viewer with snowglobe. For example, if I propose to run 'indent' on the source code and change the indentation of every source line then Merov will stop that 100MB patch from being committed. It is mainly with that issue in mind that I wanted to give LL the last say about new features. If it was possible to add arbitrary extra code and/or make arbitrary changes without that it gets harder and harder to keep up with changes in the main viewer, then it would the call of the open source community as much as that of LL imho. But that is not the case. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 05:23:44PM +0000, Morgaine wrote: > Carlo, you're missing something very important in your write-up. > > The issue that you haven't covered is that Snowglobe is intended for > interoperation with other worlds as well, not just with SL. Our work in VWRAP > has the goal of allowing a single client to work with any virtual world that > can speak the protocol, and this applies very directly to Snowglobe. [...] -- Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
