2.0 doesn't run on my machine, until it does, I couldn't work on it even if I desired to. Other people are in the same position.
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Aleric Inglewood <aleric.inglew...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Oz, > > I already communicated this clearly to merov, but I'll summarize it here: > > As you can see from > https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AgvC7hm5YZqcdHVXb05iTE0wTFc0bWptTW4tOTZuS3c&hl=en&ui=2#gid=0 > all my patches larger than one line, being > > VWR-14914 (SNOW-673) > SNOW-84 (SNOW-546), > SNOW-103 (SNOW-688), > SNOW-240, > SNOW-129 (SNOW-670) > SNOW-408, > SNOW-477, > VWR-12984 (SNOW-643) > > were like .. ignored. > > Merov ported VWR-14914, and I even helped with two others > because my friends started porting it... but basically: > > I'm not stupid and I try not to make the same mistake twice. > Therefore, I won't port my patches to 2.0 (for them to be ignored, > again in 3.0 or God knows), certainly not considering that I'm > not even using 2.0 (for reasons pointed out by others). > > So, to answer your question, in order to get me to contribute > to 2.0 Linden Lab will have to get their payed coders to port > my patches to 2.0 external (not SG, but the real thing), AND > fix the UI of 2.0 so it becomes interesting for me to use it > instead of 1.x). > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) > <o...@lindenlab.com> wrote: >> >> I opened this in the 27 May IW open source meeting, and would like to >> invite wider and more specific feedback. >> >> It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote >> to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for >> the community as a whole to be splitting effort. >> >> I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is >> happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave >> behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some >> people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know >> is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be >> happy with? >> >> One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab >> can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the >> internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that >> will be much more difficult. >> >> Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move >> development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source >> meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. >> >> >> >> To be clear... I don't object to anyone else working on 1.x at all; I'd >> just like to know why so that we can tempt them to join us on 2.x >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
