Hello Bernat, On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 11:00 +0200, Bernat Arlandis i Mañó wrote: > First, I sent this message but it didn't get to my mailbox and it seems > to be ignored by everyone so I guess it didn't reach your mailbox > neither, I think it's interesting: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fluid-dev/2009-04/msg00044.html >
I also read it and thought you made some very good points. I realized that it wasn't such a big issue as it sounded like at first. I'll be sure to answer next time, I guess I took it for granted that what you said didn't need anything added to it, but I could have at least voiced my agreement with it. I still have a little bit of a backlog of FluidSynth related mail to catch up on, as I haven't had a lot of time until just a few days ago. > With all this big changes and new plans, I'm wondering where does lie > the 2.0 branch? I could have done some work these holidays but I have > the feeling that we're diverging and I prefer to wait for the water to > calm down. Before starting this branch I was like one year reading the > list and I knew about the development status of FS, and the Miguel's > fork. Nowadays I see people jumping in with his own ideas but without > knowing much of what has been talked here lately. > > I know everyone's ideas are the best and mine aren't any better unless > demonstrated, but I already said the 2.0 branch would take some time and > work and doing it alone isn't rewarding. Besides, it might happen that > when it's ready no one is interested on it and I end having a fork that > I didn't want to start. > > I think I will stop my activity from now on until I see where FS is > heading and how. I don't want to spend more time on it until it has a > clear route and better organization. Since some things that were planned > for 2.0 are now included in the 1.1.0 plan and others are going on a > tangent, I think it's time to talk about it all. > > Regards. > I understand your concerns and I think there has indeed been problems with having good direction and leadership for FluidSynth. This has been largely an issue I've been dealing with myself. Although I feel I have the potential to be a project leader, I haven't been applying this ability very well. Now that there is this recent interest, the last thing I want to do, is stand in the way of progress and someone's own process with being a part of the project. I've been thinking over the 1.1.0 release and the 2.0 branch and how that fits in. I think one major thing that FluidSynth has going for it currently is that many applications are using it. While the API may have many issues and be lacking in some areas, there is likely a lot that can be done underneath, to make things cleaner and an overall better piece of software, without breaking the API for current applications. I think your desire to make a 2.0 branch was born of the desire for the freedom to innovate and change FluidSynth, without having to think so much about keeping API compatibility. FluidSynth could definitely use innovation. Its been collecting dust for some time now. As I am starting to see things now, the 1.1.0 milestone could be a stepping stone for 2.0. So perhaps it is premature at this point, to have a separate 2.0 branch. The next release of FluidSynth will largely be a time for us all to come up to speed on where FluidSynth is, where we want it to go and how to work as a team to get things done. It is indeed much less rewarding to work on something by oneself, without much appreciation for it. I would really hate to see that happen. So it seems more a matter of figuring out how you can apply what you want to work with on with FluidSynth, with the 1.1.0 version. There is plenty to do and I would like to see you a part of that and the reward it deserves, as much as I myself have a new desire to be more a part of it. A lot of the things I have wanted to do with FluidSynth, have been held back by the necessity to perform other tasks, that I didn't really want to do. My hope is that we can organize things in such a way, where we are each doing what we want to do and at the same time working cooperatively for the benefit of the project. I encourage you to not stop your contributions to FluidSynth and lets instead discuss what the direction and organization is, as you suggested. From that list of proposed items that I sent, I imagine it was the porting to glib task, that was what we had planned for the 2.0 branch. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on what you want to see happen and if and how that could work with the direction of 1.1.0. Kind regards, Josh _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev