On Saturday 21 Jun 2003 12:03 am, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Richard Evans wrote: > > I'm suggesting I donate all the DT::Locale code to the DT project next > > week, then anyone with CVS access can hack away to their hearts content - > > I wouldn't be in "control" of it any more. > > > > If you want to give me CVS access as well, that's entirely up to you, but > > I would be happy to concentrate on other things for a while. > > > > Does that make sense, or am I missing the point? (wouldn't be the first > > time > > > > :) > > I'm really confused. Aren't we assuming that _eventually_ the ICU project > will update its data? And when that happens, we'll need to regenerate > _all_ the DT::Locale code, right? So if we hack on the _generated_ code,
Yes, ICU will undoubtedly release future updates, but when, and how frequently is anyones guess - my experience so far suggests this could be a long and frustrating wait. What will happen is end users find errors in the locale stuff, report it to DateTime or me, it gets forwarded to OpenI18N, who may or may not apply it when they feel so inclined - we'll have to wait like mugs, and users will get p*ssed off by the slow turnaround. > that'll be a big mess come the next ICU update, and it doesn't really > matter if that's one month or one year from now, because I'm hoping to > continue using this code for a long time. My suggestion is that the current release is the one and only generated release, and user supplied fixes get applied directly to the CVS code from this point onwards. That will be far easier IMHO, and it means we wouldn't have any pressing need to regenerate from ICU in the future. The one exception to this would be additions, and in that case I can generate any new locales for the time being - I'm not saying that I'll never release the generator code, simply that it's not feasible in the short term. Cheers, -- Rich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
