[fpc-other] Fork

[Henry Vermaak]

2010/10/21 Adem <listmember at letterboxes.org>:
> On 2010-10-22 01:23, Henry Vermaak wrote:
>
> 2010/10/21 Adem <listmember at letterboxes.org>:
>
> On 2010-10-21 23:47, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>
> This is wrong. If a big change promises significant advantages for FPC
> users, it will be done.
>
> The qualifier 'significant' (above and below) is far too subjective
> sometimes to even have a hope of arriving at a common ground.
>
> But, I'll take my chaces and point at DoDi's alternative parsers proposal.
>
> To me, it does sound like quite a significant advantage.
>
> Oh wow, so you want to change the parser because it "sounds" nice to you?
>
> You didn't read Florian's post; did you?
>
> Let me copy&paste the relevant bit here:
>
> "If a big change promises significant advantages for FPC users, it will be
> done."
>
> Did you notice the word 'promises'?

Somehow you have to prove these "promises".

> Seriously, if this work was done more co-operatively with the fpc team, it
> may have made it.  But I think it is too ambitious in the first place.  Some
> people maintain patch quilts for ages before it makes it into the kernel,
> for example.
>
> You make it sound like some of those religious orders where you have to
> spend years of your life... just to prove your piety.

I don't care what it "sounds" like to you, I'm pointing you to valid
examples of real features that are complicated and that need to mature
and to evolve, but most of all, need a lot of work before they can
prove that they are worth anything.

To implement a complicated feature, you need to break down the
implementation into a lot of patches to make it easy for review.
People aren't going to start accepting your refactoring patches
because you promise them that it'll be worth it in the long run.

> Meritocracy out, monasticism in? :)

Whatever works for you.

Henry