12 Aug
2005
12 Aug
'05
9:43 p.m.
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
I am not going to work on the other ones anymore. If the authors can't be
bothered to help get their changes in Wine
I wouldn't blame the authors for WINE's ultra-conservative app-based
developement strategy. I woudln't blame WINE either; that's been their
development process for years and since they seem to be sucesful (for
now), it would be fair to say that their strategy is working. Whether it
pays off or not, is too premature to say.
I can't be bothered to spend time
on it either.
I agree. Our implementation of setupapi is clearly more advanced and
cleaner then WINE's. They are the ones on the losing side, unless they
choose to somehow accomodate us. I've never liked the policy of "if you
want WINE changes, we spend time and make ROS accept them. If WINE wants
ROS changes, we spend time and make WINE accept them". It seems
counterproductive. WINE should get a guy to sync ROS changes as well,
and have a process to make sure they get accepted. It seems silly to
require a real-world application. Of COURSE there is one...or else why
would the API be exported? Sure, there might be only three applications
in the world, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. And finding 3
applications out of the billions that exist is worse then finding a
needle in a hay stack. If you don't care about three apps, then you run
into a dangerous slippery slope. Who decides the number of apps you're
willing to sacrifice? 3? 30? 300? If you start sacrificing apps here and
there, the number grows exponentially.
Gé.
Best Regards,
Alex Ionescu