[rt-devel] Re: [rt-users] Code fork

[Tobias Brox]

> Appart from the fact that my personal opinion is that XEmacs is the better
> branch I think with RT we could keep the same CVS repository. I mean are
> there fundamental reasons to really split instead of making a branch,
> and releasing it ASAP?

Jesse suggested branching out a FunRT for Funcom ... while I disapprove
_that_ idea (anything truely local should be kept truely local, any really
doubious features should be kept in the contrib dir, and I really have bad
experiences with the old FunRT branch), having a feature-rich work-now
branch might work out a little bit better than a complete fork.  I'd say
"aye" to this option.  Though, I'm a bit concerned that the current CVS
already is a bit stretched concerning branching ... anyway, six numbered
revision codes are merely ugly.  Jesse, what do you think? 

One advantage with forking it to sourceforge is that it will be easy to
add developers to the project.  I think it's greatly time preserving to
have people contribute directly to the CVS instead of submitting a patch
that might already be outdated before anyone have the time to look through
it.  Of course it's dangerous to open it completely, but I don't think
it's that hard to track what's happening in the CVS, weed out new bugs as
they come in, and eventually stop up a bit and have a major design
discussion when somebody does something rather odd to the CVS.

Anyway, I'm quite quick at incorporating patches.

> Note that Linux also jumped to 0.93 or so to
> indicate the approaching 1.0 final release. So how about 1.8---leaving
> the step 1.9 as a last resort?

That might work.  Actually I think it's a good idea. Though I'd rather
like to see the version number 2.1 for my branch :)  As I feel it, RT 1.1
was also "almost ready" before RT 1.0 was official.

> > > To quote RMS (gratuitously), I would rather use stable, well-thought-out,
> > > "Done-right-the-first-time" GNU tools than the more feature-rich,
> 
> Do you know JWZ's article "worse is better"?

Yeah, but I dislike it ;)

> > > bug-full, downright scandalous offerings of those who want to ship their
> > > product ASAP and let the user base debug it for them.
> 
> I see no problem if that is clearly marked as e.g. in the even/odd
> numbering scheme of the Linux kernels.

Clearly.

> > > If this is true, you should continue to hack on it together. 
> > 
> > That's not up to me anymore.
> 
> Sorry if I'm poking to much into the feelings of you and Jesse but
> is everything settled? 

Maybe I'm a little bit bitter of beeing cutted off and asked to leave, but
anyway I think we can communicate rather freely.

-- 
Spell checkers are for wimps
(please send feedback on all typos)