[fpc-pascal] Some features for FPC 3.0?

[Lukasz Sokol]

On 18/02/15 11:57, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Lukasz Sokol said:
[...]
>> You might end up with some people that are less patient instantiating their own git repos, 
>> and adopting faster pace, and the main repos becoming outdated... because their downstream 
>> patches won't apply to upstream without considerable amount of work.
> 
> That simply can't be stopped. It is of course annoying since usually the
> support burden for such projects still falls on the original project (even
> if only 2nd line).
> 
That can be stopped, if the downstream projects like this, can be confident
of their patches be present in next (major) release...

> But anyone can suddenly imagine he can do a better job and start an
> independent branch, I don't think it is wise to let that fact influence how
> to setup the process too much.
> 
Yeah only by setting an example maybe.

>> I'm actually with Silvio on this 
> 
> Silvio sets goals but doesn't provide the resources to do so. That is the
> crucial flaw in such rants.

Please don't get us wrong, no one says this has to happen now, immediately or OVERNIGHT,
it's more like if ... could some speedup be considered ...? Pretty please ?
That's from me, ordinary user who lives on stable... 

No one asks anyone to overstrain themselves really, and for what effect. 

Only saying, that Linux's approach of the (major) releases happening at lightning speed, compared
to what they were doing before, seems to also have effect of more exposure to whoever
wants to participate (and other projects seem to be adopting that approach too), more patches
and more interested eyeballs. (though probably need for thicker skin sometimes as well)

> 
>> (maybe by altering the criteria, of how much of a change is considered fit for a next major release, 
>>   /considerably/ down; 
>>  even if it means, if tracking the features of Delphi compiler is any factor, 
>>  that for 1 Delphi release, FPC releases 5 or 6 major releases before it catches up)
> 
> That is another fundamental flaw, trying to plan something in a project that
> survives on voluntarily work of volunteers.  There is nothing that CAN be
> steered top down in projects like this. 

Well I can understand this... I'm not top-down, I'm the very end of the callchain :)

Lukasz