Re: [leafnode-list] "ma" versus non-"ma"? (was: Requesting version 2.0 status summary.)

[Matthias Andree <ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lloyd Zusman schrieb am Donnerstag, den 22. Februar 2001:

> > 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.

We simply haven't get around to do so. This would have to be managed in
a way, like CVS, which I'm currently using at home to track his changes
to be able to merge his updates in quick. The parts of my tree that
Cornelius finds useful (after he has had time to evaluate them!) usually
go in, even if it takes some work to convince him.

> > (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.

It's a public list, and some mailers may not properly escape or
recognize the "From " at the beginning of a line and cut the mail off.

> Still, my opinion is that having two, parallel, nearly identical
> versions detracts from, rather than adds to the overall leafnode
> development.

Of course, merging these causes additional overhead, but that way,
usually four eyeballs see the code that's going in, but I would not call
this distracting.

> 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
> question.

There has not been a historical incident that's caused the split, I have
experimented a bit and released at the points where I either found my
patches useful for others or I needed testers to check that my new
approach did not break things - parts of those versions have been taken
into the main tree later.

Cornelius' versions in the 1.9 have always been stable releases, he
usually hasn't released intermediate versions like I did.

> 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?

I would still occasionally, if not frequently, release from an instable
branch and then merge back if verified, so the labels would change, not
the scheme. I like it the way it is - people consider my version with
caution, look closely - I can happily leave the decision of when to flag
a version "stable" up to Cornelius.

For what it's worth, the early ln_log versions suffered from an
incompatible verbosity scheme: I had simply missed that the verbosity
level had a meaning, top level, group level, article level, low level -
and the early ln_log versions just used a severity indicator (info,
notice, warning, error, fatal sort of thing) which is not too useful.
The later versions in my tree at home have a sort of a domain flag (is
this log message relevant to article, group, whatever) to reinstate
something more like the original behaviour, with overriding any domain
and verbosity flags for actual errors (they are logged even without -v),
so I'm reliant it's going in later, because it saves programmer's work.

-- 
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- mailing list for leafnode
To unsubscribe, send mail with "unsubscribe" in the subject to the list