On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Axel Liljencrantz
<[email protected]>wrote:
> 2012/6/1 ridiculous_fish <[email protected]>
>
>> > I would have either moved it to a separate process and communicated
>> over a
>> > socket or used cooperative threading, but I guess there is a chance that
>> > simply means I'm very, very old.
>>
>> Or maybe wise. Combining threads with forks is very...delicate, and had I
>> appreciated just how delicate it was, I might not have attempted it. It
>> can be
>> done safely and portably, and I claim to have done so, but it does
>> require some
>> contortions.
>>
>
> Would you say it is delicate as in the code is still fragile, or only that
> it was a long journey to get it to a robust state? Can you give some
> pointers to parts of the code that are less obvious?
>
I'd also like to know that. Anything specific someone needs to know in
order to build patches against your version?
> Maybe I should have documented the code better, then. I really think it's
> a pretty wonderful idea, and pretty much the nicest memory management model
> you can find in languages without garbage collecting, IMO. Not my idea at
> all, though. I got it from a very similar setup used by the samba project,
> but the idea's been around for a lot longer than that. I rolled my own
> version because I wanted to be able to call methods when deallocating, sort
> of like a destructor in C++, which wasn't possible in the samba version.
>
Obviously I haven't looked into fish's memory management enough to notice
that. Is there a writeup of these ideas anywhere online other than reading
the code?
> Why do bug tracking on github and repo tracking on gitorious?
>>
>> fish trunk is hosted on gitorious, and I wanted to stay close to that. But
>> gitorious doesn't have an issue tracker (I sure wish it did). So the
>> current
>> dorky plan is to use gitorious for all development, and use github only
>> for bug
>> tracking. This, of course, sucks.
>>
>
> I think that is a bad plan.
>
> How have issues been tracked in the past with gitorious? How do people feel
>> about moving everything to github?
>>
>
> I'd like to hear answers to these questions, too.
>
When the repo was converted from darcs to git while Axel was away, github
was discussed. The main reason gitorious was chosen was because it has
better facilities for project based development. On gitorious multiple
people can have full access to the fish repo, while on github (as far as
I'm aware) a repository is always owned by one person and other people can
only work on their own clones.
However, the lack of bugtracking and a wiki/documentation system sucks.
There hasn't been a lot of unified bugtracking the last few years. Some of
it was on the mailinglist, some on sourceforge, and some on fishshell.com.
So we clearly need one unified approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Fish-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
