> On 11 Sep 2015, at 2:59 am, Richard Gaskin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You've identified the crux of the problem well: LiveCode was never designed
> with modern FOSS methods in mind. Indeed, it predates most modern FOSS
> workflows we take for granted today. This is one reason LiveCode Builder is
> being designed as it is.
Hey guys. Just to keep the discussion in a bit of perspective with regard to
whether we are able to contribute to LiveCode I did some file counts.
This counts the total number of files in the repo skipping those in the git
directory
find . -not \( -path ./.git -prune \) -type f | wc -l
20227
These two counts summed are the files we are worried about although I know
there’s some files with the .rev extension that are actually plain text. Not
sure how that came about...
find . -name "*.rev" | wc -l
145
find . -name "*.livecode" | wc -l
56
Here’s the docs
find . -name "*.lcdoc" | wc -l
2611
And here’s the libraries written in LiveCode Script that you can contribute to
find . -name "*.livecodescript" | wc -l
91
LiveCode Builder anyone?
find . -name "*.lcb" | wc -l
61
Now given these counts and ignoring some other binaries counted in the repo
count there’s roughly 99% of the repo files we can freely contribute to without
encountering these issues. The 2611 lcdocs files that are very easy to write
and maintain would be a good start. The livecodescript files are an obvious
target and for the more adventurous there’s lcb to do something with.
Cheers
Monte
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
