On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Carsten Möller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I meant 90% of all possible users, not current tah client users. > By the way, is here any Windows-User in this group, who has > successfully uploaded tilesets, lately?
(Disclaimer: I haven't written a line of code for [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Just because 90% of all computer users use windows that doesn't mean that 90% of all potential users of [EMAIL PROTECTED] are Windows users, claiming that is just a gross misuse of statistics. For one thing you can look at the total numbers of Perl users on Windows to see that that's just not true, despite the perl interpreter being quite successfully ported to win32 Pers users on Unix-like systems still far outnumber win32 users. Having said that the people in this thread are quite correct in pointing out that if you want to get anywhere with [EMAIL PROTECTED] on win32 you're either going to have to do it yourself or find someone who will. You obviously seem to care about it so why not maintain the port? Porting pure-Perl code to a new platform is generally quite easy and mostly involves changing hardcoded stuff that has to do with filesystem functions to use core modules that are portable and other such mundane stuff. And, to reply to your earlier suggestion that [EMAIL PROTECTED] changes be developed in branches, tested and then merged into trunk when "they're ready" that leads to problems of its own. I've been apart of a major free software project (MediaWiki) that used to do that but abandoned it because what you had as a result of that was people basically working on neat features that were mostly untested in their own branches. And when you wanted to make a release from those, or in the case of MediaWiki deploy them on wikipedia.org you had this really painful process sometimes going over many months where you found that most of that was broken in one way or another so you had to fix all sorts of bugs, some of which ended up on the live site and were much harder to fix because they were part of a larger and untested codebase. MediaWiki now does what [EMAIL PROTECTED] does and runs the live site from svn trunk, which I really think is a much better solution overall because although you do get occasional breakage you don't get into this huge deployment process where everything breaks apart once you try to merge it all back into production. It's really hell for the devs working on it too because they end up spending a majority of their time working in the dark as opposed to making incremental changes on something that's known to work, and either those changes screw everything up immediately in which case they're fixed quickly, or in the more likely case they work in production and more neat features can be developed in the certainty that they're not being built on sand. _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
