On 15.08.2008, at 16:51, Dejan Lekic wrote: > Anton, there will never be a merge between those two. If it did not > happen for last 8 years, then there will be no merge in next 8 > years. - > So, probably never. > It is a pointless discussion, because it is clear even to blind eyes > that there are two fractions - conservative one which like Fl_/fl_ and > modern/liberal (i would add "radical" here as well ;) which is brave > enough to accept new/modern ideas. > Thus I follow Mikko's (who contributed large amount of FLTK2 code) > advice and maintain my own FLTK2 branch in a GIT repository, and > wait to > see what will others decide. > My FLTK2 branch is heavily modified from FLTK2 in SVN because I use > STDC++ templates/classes a lot, and I am planning on using Boost as > well. > Soon there will be a new C++ standard released, and FLTK still uses > some > prefixes to avoid name collisions... I have no words for this... Yes, > some people are fine with this - I AM NOT.
OK, the sum of your mails finally makes me write this. I should probably have written this two years ago. FLTK2 has become a pool of unnerving, buggy, rotten code, spread all over the world. All FLTK2 developers (and who knows how many there really are) seem to have taken a private version and developed it in their own repositories. You have taken a perfectly fine library (the old FLTK2), and basically ripped it to shreds for your own purposes. But hey, it is OpenSource, so you guys can do with it whatever you like. But by opening your own branches and not using the main repository anymore, you have created something that has nothing to do anymore with what FLTK once was. Again, it's fine. Adding templates, Boost, namespaces, etc. is all valid, but making the library fat and unstable give FLTK a bad name. FL stands for Fast and Light. FLTK1 is known to be extremely stable, but all the fighting about the diverging versions and lack of maintenance scares users and potential developers away. Even Bill recommended at one point to continue with the FLTK1 core. What a shame that all the useful inventons in FLTK2 have been dilluted to a nothing. So my suggestion to the "new" FLTK2 developers: if your new library is neither Fast nor Light and lives in repositories outside of fltk.org, then please rename your libraries and get off of the fltk.org mailing list. Call it HUTK and secure that domain. www.hutk.org is available and I am happy to pay domain registration for the first four years for you. It has the added benefit for you of not having to read my blurbs anymore. Matthias PS: This is my personal opinion. Other developers and maintainers may or may not see this differently. ---- http://robowerk.com/ _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list fltk-dev@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
