2009/8/14 Richard Jones <[email protected]>: > Alex and I believe that pyglet should not grow in scope (actually, > Alex would argue that pyglet covers too much scope right now). It > should be a solid core on which those 3rd party libraries may be > developed. See the design document link that Alex posted in his > email[1]. > > To that end the open SVN access isn't really that great a problem: > there should always be a tight rein on any sort of feature creep and > definitely an eye for backwards compatibility in any commit.
Something that would be really useful for those of us interested in continuing the project would be a consensus on what the appropriate scope for Pyglet should be. While that design document is very interesting, and certainly gives a feeling for the flavour of Pyglet, it's somewhat out of date, as far as current Pyglet development goes. I'd be very interested to hear both Richard and Alex's opinions on this matter, as they're the most familiar with Pyglet from a technical perspective. In particular, the future of the "experimental" branch is something I'd like to talk about. While I'm with Alex on the idea of "semi-organised anarchy", we have just increased the number of people who can make commits by more than a factor of five. I think we need to start thinking about what form that semi-organisation should take. Martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" 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/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
