[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2007, 10:20 +0100 schrieb Christian Thaeter:
> Finally I found some time to look at some cinelerra bugs. Cinelerra use
>> quite some own things......
>
>> I believe the code complexity could be lowered by replacing some
>> things with standard or defacto-standard libs rather fixing the problems
> ...
>
> Hello Christian,
>
> I am much in favour of the cleanups you propose, indeed, many aspects
> of cinelerra source are hard to work with...
>
> but, as I see it, the main problem is:
> will such changes be accepted "upstream"??
Who knows :). Maybe Adam likes it and I hope when I/we get this good it
has some chance to be accepted by him. Anyways this is Free Software and
I use my free rights to fit it to my needs. This is still a personal
experiment (first results later, looks promising so far).
> If not, we will end up with a de-facto code fork. (I state this without
> intending any pun or hostility). /If/ we wanted a completely forked
> "Community-Cinelerra", we would need much more dev manpower....
CinlerraCV is already a de-facto fork, with friendly relations to
upstream and kept to be somewhat mergeable (which is a hell of work).
I try to keep my branch mergeable with CinelerraCV (Which is much easier
to merge for sure). Future will tell how this works.
Christian
_______________________________________________
Cinelerra mailing list
Cinelerra@skolelinux.no
https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
