On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
For me, a some key things don't work with impd, like [tot] IIRC.
Well, impd is currently very much unstable anyway, so when I actually decide to make a release, then why not report that [tot] doesn't work and actually tell me how to test for the problem and then maybe i'll know what to fix.
And if Miller's changes aren't maintained in impd, then there would be a fork.
That's a pretty strange definition of fork. Maybe that's the slashdot definition of fork, I mean with the "bad, evil" connotations. To me, a branch and a fork are the same thing. Whether there is collaboration/osmosis between the branches is a separate issue.
That said, I'm not going to put the burden of merging Miller's/devel's changes into impd, as it's already enough job to just get my changes working. I mean essentially I am rewriting pretty much all of the gui code and it's long enough that I can't afford to further slow myself down. Given the interest that impd generates, why wouldn't another developer actually handle that task?
Already, a bunch of useful stuff has been forgotten in the devel_0_36 branch, for whatever reason.
Well, if this is so much of an issue, then why don't you post the ChangeLog of the forgotten features ? and then developers would either patch devel/impd using old diffs, or reimplement the features in terms of the new codebase.
________________________________________________________________ Mathieu Bouchard http://artengine.ca/matju