On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 4:14:53 PM UTC-3, vitalije wrote:
>
> Me too. It seems after all we still have a healthy open source community.
> Let's keep it that way.
> Vitalije
>
I'm also really glad to hear this!
I'm sorry I have not been able to say any encouraging word before nor to be
of
On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 9:11:47 PM UTC+2, john lunzer wrote:
>
> While cooler heads prevailed it easily could have gone the other way, so I
> will not retract my post. I'm happy to see this positive movement.
>
> Me too. It seems after all we still have a healthy open source community.
While cooler heads prevailed it easily could have gone the other way, so I
will not retract my post. I'm happy to see this positive movement.
On Friday, July 13, 2018 at 3:08:46 PM UTC-4, john lunzer wrote:
>
> I don't blame you. I agree that contributions should be considered
> unconditionally
I don't blame you. I agree that contributions should be considered
unconditionally based on multiple metrics of merit (solves problems, adds
features, increased or decreased usability, addition or reduction of code
complexity, adherence to user API, and passes unit test).
Skepticism is fine
>
>
> In short, have at it. I'll do everything I can to help.
>
> Edward
>
I am glad to hear (read) it.
I'll start immediately. You should not worry too much. I am sure that you
won't regret your decision once you see the final version.
Vitalije
--
You received this message because you are
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:33 AM, vitalije wrote:
Ok. I will continue to work on this branch but under one condition. If
> branch passes all unit tests (and you are free to add as much unit tests as
> you like until branch is finished), you will let Leo developers to vote on
> this proposal and
Ok. I will continue to work on this branch but under one condition. If
branch passes all unit tests (and you are free to add as much unit tests as
you like until branch is finished), you will let Leo developers to vote on
this proposal and you won't use your right to veto. If you accept this
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 8:54 AM, vitalije wrote:
> But if you want to demonstrate the new data model in a separate git
>> branch, I won't reject it without study, provided it passes all unit tests.
>>
>
>> At the very least, your work would fix #942, which is something that I
>> don't
@john lunzer we posted almost at the same time.
This sounds like the right next step. If it passes all unit tests and
> doesn't break user scripts while at the same time solving issues and making
> improvements to usability then it deserves careful consideration. Results
> will speak more
>
> But if you want to demonstrate the new data model in a separate git
> branch, I won't reject it without study, provided it passes all unit tests.
>
> At the very least, your work would fix #942, which is something that I
> don't particularly want to do now.
>
> For now, if I can, I would
This sounds like the right next step. If it passes all unit tests and
doesn't break user scripts while at the same time solving issues and making
improvements to usability then it deserves careful consideration. Results
will speak more loudly than any amount forum deliberation.
On Friday, July
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:07 AM, vitalije wrote:
> 1. Vitalije's stress test is unrealistic.
>
>
>> Neither users nor scripts continually redraw the screen in the manner of
>> the demo.
>>
>> This simply isn't true. In demo screen was redrawn repeatedly to make an
> average speed measurement
>
> 1. Vitalije's stress test is unrealistic.
> Neither users nor scripts continually redraw the screen in the manner of
> the demo.
>
> This simply isn't true. In demo screen was redrawn repeatedly to make an
average speed measurement and results are expressed in terms of speed of
one
On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 6:53:29 PM UTC-5, Edward K. Ream wrote:
The following demos took about 30 minutes to write, and much longer to
> write up here. Imo, they show the following:
>
> 1. There is a performance bug in p.moveToVisNext().
> 2. There are several ways to work around the bug,
The following demos took about 30 minutes to write, and much longer to
write up here. Imo, they show the following:
1. There is a performance bug in p.moveToVisNext().
2. There are several ways to work around the bug, speeding up the drawing
code by about 25x.
3. The new data model would speed
15 matches
Mail list logo
