On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:55:58PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > On one hand, IMHO, if released now, 1.4.0 wouldn't bring that much to > the final user compared to 1.3.7 and it is much slower. As a user I will > stick with 1.3.7.
It's worth remembering that one of the reasons that 1.4.0 is so much slower is because the code was treated like a wiki. > On the other hand, correct me if I am wrong but I have the feeling that > many developers are stalled because they are waiting for this thing to > go out so that the fun of developing can start again. I have been > following the list regularly and my impression is that there are only > two really active developers now (Martin Vermeer and John Spray). So if > Lars and others are more available to help and to review code after > 1.4.0 then that alone is a good reason to unleash the beast. This > freezing period has last for too long, really. If we never have any releases then there's just no point doing any development at all, don't you agree? The LyX core is still plagued by historical difficulties, and doing nice simple changes is oftentimes way too difficult. > For example, as a wannabe lyx developer, I felt very frustrated that > nobody took a look at my Qt4 frontend. I had to develop this alone while > I am sure others would have been interested. As a result, my source code > has diverged very much from the qt2 frontend and seeing the inertia on > the development I am pretty sure now that it will be rejected because of > that. I just stopped because of that. It's unfortunate timing, that's all. I know at least Andre would be interested. It's a bit of a pity that Qt 4 is so very different... > My opinion is that source code should be a bit like a wiki, I mean in > perpetual rewrite until the right code is found. One should not be > afraid to reorganize things 10 times before finding the right solution. > I also think this cvs diff tool is very bad because reviewers tend to > read the diff instead of the code itself. As a consequence, developers > try to minimize the patches whereas they should aim at minimize the code. It'd be much nicer if we had better review tools, I agree. > Sorry for the off-topic tirade... But it's almost Friday :-) Pleading near-Friday too... regards john
