Hi, > This is wrong because now you can use either scidvspc or scid, your choice, > after you can only use scidvspc.
In that case you are clearly seeing the two as completely separate programs, which I must admit, I do not. Freedom of choice is good, but it can also create confusion. Let me tell you where I am coming from: I started to use Scid because it is the only chess DB packaged for Debian. When I noticed all the bugs I intended to help out with the development, but then I saw that Scid is mostly dead, whereas Scid vs PC is actively developed. I have no idea how open Steve is for patches, but sending patches to an active maintainer rather than to a dead project is much more appealing to me. I'm a correspondence chess player and I use Scid about 1 to 2 hours per day to analyse my games, so I really care about usability and stability. But I do not really care too much how it is achieved, as long as it works. At the moment I spend quite some time every day working around the quirks of Scid (regular restarts to avoid crashes, manual entering of variations, etc.). As I said before, I am really happy Scid exists, but there is clear room for improvement. :) According to svn log, the fork of Scid vs PC dates back to late March 2010, but around 3/4 of the development has been done in the last two years, when Scid was mostly idle. On the other hand, according to git log, the number changes in Scid since then are managable. Of course there has been a certain amount of divergence, but to me it does not look like it would be impossible to merge them. It would seem more logical to do the merge the other way around, i.e. merge interesting fixes from Scid into Scid vs PC. That should be less work, although there would still be quite some manual work involved of course. Moreover, it is not like old versions of Scid will disappear. I think in the end it comes down to the question whether there is anyone who intends to develop Scid further, which right now simply does not seem to be the case. I think that is also where Steve's proposal is coming from. I honestly don't know the reasons why Scid was forked in the first place, usually forks happen because of social or technical disagreements. But if nobody is developing Scid anymore, does it really matter? By keeping the projects apart you are potentially doubling the work for downstreams, i.e. distributions such as Debian, Fedora, ... But it seems quite obvious by now that there is no consensus about the usefulness of keeping Scid around in its current form. In the end it is up to the project administrators to agree on something anyway, I only wanted to explain my reasoning. :) Kind regards, Aljoscha On 13 March 2013 11:13, Fulvio <f...@libero.it> wrote: > Aljoscha Lautenbach wrote: >> >> I am very much in favour of this merge. >> >> >> Fulvio, for the people who have not been around as long, could you >> name a reason why you are opposed to the merge? Do you have concrete >> plans to develop Scid further? There has been almost no activity in >> the last 2 years. >> >> Kind regards, >> Aljoscha >> > > Hi, i'm in favour of the merge too. > But Steven is not proposing to merge scidvspc back to scid (please see my > other post on how that should be done) he is proposing to delete the scid > you are currently using and replace it with his scidvspc. > This is wrong because now you can use either scidvspc or scid, your choice, > after you can only use scidvspc. > Bye, > Fulvio ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Scid-users mailing list Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
