Hello, all. Althought no more work on Gnash for a long time, I still read the emails and still work on flash. And I happen to want to say some points of view.
I personally agree with bwy's removing dead and unused code. Reducing code complexity makes me feel better and more productive, since it would be easy to focus on simple things. Rob, strk and bwy are apprantly experienced programmers and experts in flash. Rob maybe able to focus on more complex code and always find the most important thing to do, but the others might not(including me). But why not just let them do what they like? Even code refactoring it's not very important atm, it's also apprently not a wrong thing. And even it's wrong, people that really need the removed code would complain and point out. It's important to keep people work happily(thus more productive) on this project. Unless anyone do something really wrong or harmful to this project, otherwise, let he go what he is interested to. So, it's simple to solve this problem. If bwy wants to remove the dead code(reason: reduce his maintance work), do it. But please put it back if someone else wants to use that code. I think it's not difficult to estimate that removing dead code is not a big/bad thing in common sense. Except for rejection, there are other choices: disinterest/indifference/agree/support/encourage:) zou On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:34 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Gnash-dev mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Gnash-dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Removal candidates (Bastiaan Jacques) > 2. Re: Removal candidates (Benjamin Wolsey) > 3. Re: Removal candidates (Rob Savoye) > 4. Re: Removal candidates (Sandro Santilli) > 5. Re: Removal candidates (Benjamin Wolsey) > 6. Re: Removal candidates (Rob Savoye) > 7. Re: Removal candidates (Brad) > 8. Re: Removal candidates (Rob Savoye) > 9. Re: Removal candidates (John Gilmore) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:30:21 +0100 (CET) > From: Bastiaan Jacques <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Removal candidates > To: Benjamin Wolsey <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > I'm wondering whether the FLTK GUI is used at all. When it was written > years ago, the idea was that FLTK2 would be released soon, but that > still hasn't happened. I can sort of see keeping this for portability > reasons, but even mingw32 comes with GTK these days. > > I'm fairly certain nobody uses the Aqua (native OSX) GUI either, seeing > as it has never worked correctly. If a native OSX application bundle is > to be built, I think it should use GTK anyway; even the GTK2 port for > OSX implements enough features for Gnash. > > They would both be candidates for removal in my view. > > Bastiaan > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Benjamin Wolsey wrote: > > Also for any other code that has become unused. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:44:09 +0100 > From: Benjamin Wolsey <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Removal candidates > To: Bastiaan Jacques <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <1300477449.1810.7.camel@franz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Am Freitag, den 18.03.2011, 20:30 +0100 schrieb Bastiaan Jacques: > > I'm wondering whether the FLTK GUI is used at all. When it was written > > years ago, the idea was that FLTK2 would be released soon, but that > > still hasn't happened. I can sort of see keeping this for portability > > reasons, but even mingw32 comes with GTK these days. > > FLTK 2 is permanently discontinued as far as I know, so I also would > recommend removing it. > > > I'm fairly certain nobody uses the Aqua (native OSX) GUI either, seeing > > as it has never worked correctly. If a native OSX application bundle is > > to be built, I think it should use GTK anyway; even the GTK2 port for > > OSX implements enough features for Gnash. > > Also fine by me. I'm in fact happy to remove all GUIs except SDL, GTK, > FB, and KDE4 since I don't believe the others are used, and each GUI > increases the maintenance burden considerably. I only care about SDL > because I haven't got anything else working under w32; otherwise it's > not a particularly wonderful GUI. > > bwy > > -- > -- > Use Gnash, the GNU Flash Player! > http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ > > Benjamin Wolsey, Software Developer - http://benjaminwolsey.de > C++ and Open-Source Flash blog - http://www.benjaminwolsey.de/bwysblog > > xmpp:[email protected] > http://identi.ca/bwy > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 198 bytes > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part > Url : > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnash-dev/attachments/20110318/4326eca4/attachment.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:09:28 -0600 > From: Rob Savoye <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Removal candidates > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 03/18/2011 01:44 PM, Benjamin Wolsey wrote: > > > FLTK 2 is permanently discontinued as far as I know, so I also would > > recommend removing it. > > I wrote the FLTK2 GUI to replace SDL, but as FLTK2 never really got > released by the FLTK developers, it's never been used as far as I'm > aware. SDL truly sucks. It has a terrible event loop, and if hadn't been > used by GameSWF, I would have never used it either. I actually wish we > could get rid of the SDL dependency in libmedia too. > > > Also fine by me. I'm in fact happy to remove all GUIs except SDL, > > GTK, FB, and KDE4 since I don't believe the others are used, and each > > GUI increases the maintenance burden considerably. I only care about > > SDL because I haven't got anything else working under w32; otherwise > > it's not a particularly wonderful GUI. > > Personally, the additional GUIs add very little maintenance, and I > base this on all the years I've worked on Gnash. GTK2 is of course the > best supported, SDL we're stuck with, and KDE4 we should keep to support > those users. The Aqua GUI was supposed to get Gnash working more like a > native OSX application, but it's been unfinished now for years... > > I don't barely understand this urge to remove code from Gnash that > works. As one of the 4 software freedoms is the freedom to run code on > any hardware you choose, these GUIs allow that. Now that OS/2 users have > no support as of earlier today, I assume Haiku is next. > > What is the point ? To reduce the line count ? Lately it seems more > code is getting deleted from Gnash than added... How come nobody works > on new features anymore ? If AVM2 support got as much attention as all > this "clean-up", it'd be complete by now instead of deleted... > > - rob - > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:24:39 +0100 > From: Sandro Santilli <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Removal candidates > To: Rob Savoye <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 02:09:28PM -0600, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > I don't barely understand this urge to remove code from Gnash > > I think the GUI subsystem needs a pretty wide refactoring, to > do things like start up a gui w/out a movie and allow file->open. > > Doing that and still keep support for all GUIs would be much more > work for whoever is going to do it. Of course we can decide to > decouple the two things and only ask whoever is going to do that > work to keep the default-built GUIs: gtk/kde/sdl/fb/dump > > It's still a big set, but at least might scare a bit less. > > --strk; > > () Free GIS & Flash consultant/developer > /\ http://strk.keybit.net/services.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:27:43 +0100 > From: Benjamin Wolsey <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Removal candidates > To: Rob Savoye <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <1300480063.1810.18.camel@franz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > I don't barely understand this urge to remove code from Gnash that > > works. As one of the 4 software freedoms is the freedom to run code on > > any hardware you choose, these GUIs allow that. Now that OS/2 users have > > no support as of earlier today, I assume Haiku is next. > > I think I may have misinterpreted what you said in your email about > riscos. Still, it hasn't been compilable for months if not years, so is > neither internally nor externally maintained. In this case too it is not > plausible to suggest that uncompilable code has any users. > > I'll put it back if anyone wants. But I think it would only be fair if > that person also maintained it. > > No working code has been removed from Gnash in the last couple of weeks. > > > What is the point ? To reduce the line count ? Lately it seems more > > code is getting deleted from Gnash than added... > > That's not a bad thing. Indeed I always try to remove more than I add, > because Gnash has too much unmaintained code. > > > How come nobody works > > on new features anymore ? > > Partly because changing the GUI interface can involve adapting six or > seven GUIs, changing the rendering interface involves currently 3 > renderers, apparently soon to be more. With the limited time we have as > a small number of volunteers, that makes certain tasks very slow. > > bwy > > -- > -- > Use Gnash, the GNU Flash Player! > http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ > > Benjamin Wolsey, Software Developer - http://benjaminwolsey.de > C++ and Open-Source Flash blog - http://www.benjaminwolsey.de/bwysblog > > xmpp:[email protected] > http://identi.ca/bwy > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 198 bytes > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part > Url : > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnash-dev/attachments/20110318/d4a77d86/attachment.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:35:46 -0600 > From: Rob Savoye <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Removal candidates > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 03/18/2011 02:24 PM, Sandro Santilli wrote: > > > I think the GUI subsystem needs a pretty wide refactoring, to > > do things like start up a gui w/out a movie and allow file->open. > > As I said, we need to stop refactoring existing code endlessly, and > work on adding new code for both AVM2, and other things Gnash currently > doesn't support. While refactoring is nice, it's like spinning ones > tires in the mud, ie... we don't more forward... Unless Gnash moves > forward, we're a dying project in my opinion. > > AVM2 is way more important than any refactoring of existing internal > APIs. Now refactoring to support AVM2, that would be fine. With the > limited resources we have, refactoring just for the hell of it is a > waste of time. > > > It's still a big set, but at least might scare a bit less. > > Real hackers aren't scared of code size (nor complexity) :-) You think > Gnash is bad, you would have hated working on GCC... > > - rob - > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:06:04 -0400 > From: Brad <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Removal candidates > To: Rob Savoye <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 18/03/11 4:35 PM, Rob Savoye wrote: > > Real hackers aren't scared of code size (nor complexity) :-) You think > > Gnash is bad, you would have hated working on GCC... > > and GCC is a good example of how not to do things. > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:09:46 -0600 > From: Rob Savoye <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Removal candidates > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 03/18/2011 03:06 PM, Brad wrote: > > > and GCC is a good example of how not to do things. > > I wouldn't say that, GCC is the world's most portable software... Yes, > it's complexity takes months if not years to get used to as a developer, > but the benefits to end users are worth the pain. > > - rob - > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:33:59 -0800 > From: John Gilmore <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Removal candidates > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Please stop removing things from gnash, and restore the ones that have > been removed. There is no consensus to remove these things, even if > they don't currently work. Doing it in the absence of consensus just > creates unnecessary friction among the few remaining developers. > > When a volunteer comes along who wants to revive that corner of the > project, it will be much harder for them to do so if they have to root > around in ancient releases just to find a copy of the formerly-working > code base. > > As someone who still runs machines with ancient Unix / Linux releases, > I really appreciate when a software project that doesn't "support" my > old environments still makes it possible for me to get their code > running on those environments in an hour -- and post back the changes > so everyone can benefit. The alternative, projects that drop support > for anything that they can't currently test nor personally care about, > mean I have to keep running old releases, and if I need new bugfixes > or features, I have to either port them into the old release, or port > the old support for my machine into the new release. Both of those > take much longer than the hour needed to fix little stuff that breaks, > like when I run ./configure or make, or when a struct initializer > doesn't contain new members added since last time it was tested. > > John > > PS: I just today built openssl-1.0.0d and bind-9.8.0 on an ancient > machine, and found exactly one such problem, which I'm about to report > back the patch for. > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gnash-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev > > > End of Gnash-dev Digest, Vol 62, Issue 11 > ***************************************** >
_______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
