[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [leafnode-list] "ma" versus non-"ma"? (was: Requesting version 2.0 status summary.)
- To: leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [leafnode-list] "ma" versus non-"ma"? (was: Requesting version 2.0 status summary.)
- From: Lloyd Zusman <ljz@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: by mail-ob (mbox horst.fischer)(with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sat Feb 24 11:56:17 2001)
Matthias Andree <ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Lloyd Zusman schrieb am Donnerstag, den 22. Februar 2001:
> > [ ... ]
> > which discusses when the two branches of the tree (the "ma" and the
> > non-"ma" branches) are expected to be joined again? Or is it planned
> > that the two versions will remain separate for the forseeable future?
> Cornelius is free to merge, and sometimes I ask him to merge;
> usually, not all parts go in. My versions are sometimes fixes of his
> versions, sometimes more experimental with structural changes,
> sometimes both.
What is the reason that you and Cornelius are not cooperating on a
single version? It would seem to me that we all would benefit by a
merging of your two versions.
> (if your mail has no more lines after this part, but is followed by a
> broken mail, your MTA or mailer are broken)
??? Is there some particular reason why you put this parenthetical
statement in your reply to me? My email is and has been working fine,
and I never have mentioned any sort of problem with missing lines in
the messages I read here.
> From time to time, Cornelius merges some of my patches in, so
> sometimes, the trees are more in sync, sometimes less.
> If or when the branches are merged, is decided based on the quality, but
> is not a development goal, though I try to keep my version fully
> compatible (but not bug-to-bug compatible ;) with Cornelius' version.
> This is no contest, and it's not a spin-off or derivative (like
> leafnode+ is) - these are just two variants of leafnode while I want to
> keep my version close enough to the "official" one and have the
> intention of eventually getting leafnode right. It (both trees) still
> has so many bugs that users don't see, but which may bite really hard if
> actually triggered. :-(
Still, my opinion is that having two, parallel, nearly identical
versions detracts from, rather than adds to the overall leafnode
I lost my personal leafnode mailing-list archives, and I haven't been
able thus far to re-read the archives on line. Therefore, I haven't
been able to look up the history of the version split. I'll do so
over the weekend, and perhaps then I will be able to answer my own
But in the mean time, I'm still wondering: am I the only person here
who feels that we all would be better off (Cornelius and Mattias
included) if the two versions could be merged?
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- mailing list for leafnode
To unsubscribe, send mail with "unsubscribe" in the subject to the list