Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> You are guilty in this denial position too, and even more than others,
> since you have such means to change the sorry state of Forth, that
nobody
> else has.
Maybe, but remind you, Gforth is a team effort. I've not always control
over
parts which other people (like Anton) have commited to work on.
> How many times have I asked you to make intermediate release? Plenty.
> Did you listen me? No.
There have been intermediate releases.
> Do you have your system, that builds and runs from CVS head? No.
Most of the time, yes (given that you need a working gforth like 0.6.2).
> Thus you haven't addressed neither of bad points of open source Forths.
Your opinion.
> Instead of stable releases in 2006, 2007, and even start of 2008,
> you have completely broken system, that doesn't even build (even
> with its uncommon bootstrapping stage), let alone runs or runs
> correctly.
It can't be so broken, since I repeatedly manage to build it.
> Not only Gforth is broken badly, it shows signs of bad design.
>
> Why do you ****p your own libltdl? Can't you use the one from the system?
> Did you change it? If so, why?
This is an intermediate situation. Anton did that, but he found out
lately,
that the system libltdl works fine.
> Your release engineering process reminds of the best John's point:
> you seem to consider Gforth a toy. You had almost finished FFI,
> in usable and almost complete state, yet you never released it.
0.6.2 contains the "almost finished ffi".
> You broke everything and started from scratch without even announcing
> complete redesign. Why? It's just so fun to follow quirks of
> your mind! This _does_ look that childish from the side. Honest.
The redesign comes from Anton. A system with two developers always
contains
inconsistent parts.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
|
