On 30 December 2014 at 13:17, Eugene Surowitz wrote:
> Here's some of my reactions:
> ...
> Each version/fork of the code reduces the net effectiveness
> of the programming hours spent unless each person tunnel
> visions their work; that's just good control of your own time/effort.
> I in no way i
Here's some of my reactions:
On 12/29/2014 4:05 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> On 24 December 2014 at 20:31, Eugene Surowitz wrote:
>> Ralf is only telling it as it is,
>> but I wish I could be even as pessimistic as him.
>>
>
> I am definitely not as pessimistic as either of you!
>
I'm glad to hear this
On 24 December 2014 at 20:31, Eugene Surowitz wrote:
> Ralf is only telling it as it is,
> but I wish I could be even as pessimistic as him.
>
I am definitely not as pessimistic as either of you!
> This is a crisis disguised as another documentation squabble.
It seems to me the crisis actually
Waldek: Thank you for providing this explanation of
your viewpoint and experiences that motivate it.
Up until now I was baffled by what you seemed to be doing.
It seems clear the kind of support mechanism(s) that
a code complex like PanAxiom needs must be very dynamically
adaptable at a keystroke
Ralf is only telling it as it is,
but I wish I could be even as pessimistic as him.
This is a crisis disguised as another documentation squabble.
As I see the status of PanAxiom:
OpenAxiom - One developer - little to no activity = dead branch.
FriCAS- One developer - one developer - system be
