Hi, everyone. Been following all this and for my money switching any part of project management (whether that be source control, issue tracking, discussion groups) is not worth the effort for one simple reason: its not about what's better and what's worse, it's about what works and what doesn't. It seems that the discussion of DVCS going is trying to solve a problem that may not exist yet. Switching to a broader base of developers will cause some problems but would it not be best to see what those problems are before trying to fix them?
In response to Martin's concerns about the direction that pyglet is going, obviously I don't know and I don't want to make decisions without the input of either Alex or Richard but as we have this new base of interested developers we should get some discussion going (although possibly pyglet-users is the wrong place for it). Having just thought about that last comment I speculatively created the pyglet-devs group. Richard. On Aug 14, 6:11 pm, Ben Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi there, > > I've been reading this thread with interest. I would like to help out > on pyglet maintenance, particularly I'd be interested (for now) in > doing the appropriate things to open issues. So far, I've been > pleased with the scope of pyglet, though I haven't used the font and > text stuff myself(yet). > > I think what should be done for the immediate future of pyglet is to > take care of all of the important open issues and get a release out > without a scope change. While that's going on, we can easily discuss > longer-term choices and attempt to determine the fashion in which > pyglet should continue, whether it be a minimalist core with easy ways > to extend, or whether it should become emacs(not a slam on emacs, I <3 > it though that's not where I want pyglet to go, myself). > > I enjoy DVCS, but sort of as a corollary to the immediate future, we > don't need to jump head first into a different version control system > in order to get an updated release out. I personally can use git > locally and just build patches for what is to be published via svn, no > big deal. Or I can just use svn for now. One issue that comes up in > either case is that some entity(individual or committee) needs to > authoritatively determine whether things are ready for release. What > may be a determining factor for version control is whichever system is > going to match this entity's style and composition best. If that is > the case, before making version control decisions, we need to see how > the next wave of pyglet authority shakes out and we'll have a much > better idea which technologies to apply. > > My $0.02, > -b > > On Aug 14, 8:08 am, George Oliver <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Aug 14, 6:24 am, Tristam MacDonald <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Tartley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > +1. I like pyglet because it doesn't try to be a PyGame - while that > > > > is a worthy endeavour, it's not what I'm looking for here. > > > > +1 for trimming pyglet down, rather than adding features. > > > As a pyglet user and not a maintainer/developer, I'd like to add my > > support to the above. I appreciate pyglet for precisely the reasons > > Tartley noted. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
