I should point out that my post was more a comment on the tone and purpose of some of the posts on the list rather than attempting to 'shoot the messenger'.
We know there is a problem with binary stackfile contributions... We have a process to enable such things but the changes have to be presented in form where someone internally applies them manually - we have good reasons for this as I have I explained. We also have a very well defined development process in place as all software projects do - features go into the next major release, bug fixes into maintenance releases. No open source project is a free for all - everything has to managed appropriately. The 6 and 7 branches are in maintenance mode, the develop branch (to be 8) is where the next major release is being worked on and so where we merge all new features. Indeed much of the work which has been done on 8 in the IDE is to improve the possibility of easy contributions (eg scriptified stacks). Unfortunately we do not have a magic wand - we cannot just clap our hands and solve difficult problems overnight - of which binary stackfile merging is one. Due to this situation we do offer and do indeed do the manual merging that is required, but you have to forgive us for perhaps trying to ensure we don't do the same work twice which is what back porting things generally requires. Whilst it might appear we are being dogmatic, we are not. We are just trying to ensure that major versions appear as rapidly and at as high a quality as we can manage so everyone can benefit from the improvements they bring. The advantages brought by getting to a release quality 8 are far in excess of any previous version we have delivered and thus it seems reasonable (to me at least) that that is where as much effort should go as possible. Mark Sent from my iPhone > On 10 Sep 2015, at 17:02, Dirk prive <dirk.cleenwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I tend to stay quiet a lot, and prefer being silent on the side lines, but > I have noticed that there is a difference between what was expected from an > open sourced LiveCode and what is actually possible with the open source > version of LiveCode. > When people hear "open source", I think it is completely normal that they > expect to read the source, make adjustments, and give them back to the > project. This way the project can be improved by anyone that wants to help. > That's how open source works generally. > With LiveCode we apparently have binary stacks that can be edited, but the > changes can't be merged back into the project. > That completely goes against what you expect from an open source project. > When some people vent frustration over this, others on the list attack the > messenger for the message. > I think more work should be done to make this a true open source project. > That is my opinion, and I don't expect LiveCode to listen to me. > I do think that it is important for an open source project to listen to the > community (that's much bigger than me) though, and I feel that instead of > listening to the community, opposing voices seem to be either ignored, or > sometimes people even try to stifle the complaint/opposing opinion. Seems > to me to exactly the opposite of what you need in an open source community. > That aside, I don't even use the community version myself, preferring being > able to keep my source to myself for commercial projects. Not that I've > never open sourced things (if it is code that could be used by and be > helpful to others), but I tend to open source certain parts, but almost > never my whole project. > > Just my two cents. > Dirk Cleenwerck > > > >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Mark Waddingham <m...@livecode.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-09-10 08:23, Richmond wrote: >>> >>> Mark, "*flippant*" remarks often seem to hit nerves over at the >>> mother-ship, lest you haven't noticed. >> >> There's a difference between 'flippant' remarks and... >> >> "Oh look what LiveCode have done now. How stupid is that. They obviously >> don't know what there doing. I know far better." >> >> Which is, to be frank, quite a frequent apparent subtext in a lot of your >> posts :) >> >> We could open a whole new thread about *intentionality* here . . . >> >> And a whole new thread on ensuring that what you write actually comes >> across how you intend (indeed, I think this has come up on the list before). >> >> Mark. >> >> -- >> Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ >> LiveCode: Everyone can create apps >> >> _______________________________________________ >> use-livecode mailing list >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >> subscription preferences: >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
