On 26.09.2016 00:25, Peter von Kaehne wrote: > Libsword needs to be working for all kinds of devices and in a million > of unanticipated environments. Now and in future.
Give me a break! I doubt there will be much demand in the near future for BibleTime to run on less than 64-bit CPUs, for example. Given how C++ has evolved and will evolve in the near future (e.g. Filesystem TS, Networking TS etc) I think it is Sword which will be lacking behind. > Changes like dropping of utilities (diatheke for one, which is > extensively used by module makers) and bindings (again used ++ by > module makers) I don't remember the exact reason for dropping diatheke. It might have been a mistake. Thanks for pointing that out! I removed the bindings so I wouldn't have to deal with them. It simplifies the build system and there are now fewer dependencies. Second, I don't have time to maintain the bindings and BibleTime doesn't require them. Third, I think any language bindings should be kept in a separate code repositories. The utilities or tools should probably move to another repository as well. > - need to be slow, reliable and consensual. And the > maintainers need to be slow, reliable and acting in consensus, too. > Plodders, more than revolutionaries. > > Are you a plodder, seeking consensus? Two clicks just took me these Wikipedia paragraphs which describe some of the issues we're having: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Criticism_of_blocking I seriously urge us all to read and consider this subsection of that article in our context. Blessings, J _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
