Alfredo Portes wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Waldek Hebisch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >=A0Concerning OpenAxiom, I think that differences
> > are much smaller. =A0But we would have to get consensus in
> > tens (if not hundreds) issus like the current change to
> > underscore handling. =A0And statements like 'this will be a
> > forever incompatibility with OpenAxiom' does not make me
> > optimistic that attempt to merge would succeed.
>
> I think you misunderstood Gaby's message. In previous
> messages in both lists there were several comments as to keep
> compatibility between the 2 projects. But the change you plan for Fricas
> is probably something he is not planning to do and it has not been discusse=
> d
> or proposed in OpenAxiom, therefore his warning.
Let me explain how I read his message: the change is easy to
implement, so if he approves it he could do it in OpenAxiom
and there would be no problem. So apparently he has something
againt it. But he does not say so explicitely and gives no
argument against, just raises issue of compatibility. Yet
AFAICS impact of this change is much smaller than several
of changes that were made to OpenAxiom (and FriCAS too, but
my impression is that OpenAxiom has slight lead in introducing
incompatibilities). It is true there we recent comment about
compatibility. But Gaby is smart enough to know that various
design/implementation decisions impact compatibility and
that compatiblity is important for users. So it is hard
for me to believe that he suddenly became more concerned
about compatiblity and his comment was sincere.
> Regarding merging, I honestly think both projects would benefit from
> it, and I am
> sure a large group of the people reading both lists want this. However only
> you and Gaby have the last word on this matter. If there is no
> intention of merging,
> then of course feel free to make the changes you think are best for Fricas.
I believe that technicaly merging sources requires substantial work
but is possible. As I wrote the tricky part would be to get
consensus in matters that were done differently in both projects.
Both projects would have to engage into merge. I would be willing
to sincerely try, but first would have to be convinced that the
other side is willing too. Coming back to underscores: I spent
some time thinking about the issue and I believe that the
change is significant improvement with almost no drawbacks.
Yet it is not so big issue to risk unity of project -- in the
past I have few times taken what I consider technically inferior
solution but appeared to be majority view. However, when
opposition to what I consider pretty clear technical decision
is voiced in such a way (see above my interpretation of Gaby
message), then I have doubts if more tricky (== when technical
aspects are less clear and impact is bigger) decisions will
be resolved in constructive way. Of course, that my view
and Gaby may see it in different way.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________
open-axiom-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
