[sword-devel] I implore you...
Troy A. Griffitts
scribe at crosswire.org
Sun Jun 9 23:43:26 MST 2013
I accepted and applied your header file patch nearly 5 months ago. Are
you telling me that you still have 549 warnings from SWORD headers?
On 06/09/2013 11:55 PM, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 09.06.2013 23:21, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>> I don't think other developers are getting ignored. Please be
>> specific. Just because I don't accept a patch doesn't mean a
>> developer is getting ignored.
>> In fact, many times trying to make this release, when people
>> complain that we need something fixed for this release, I ask for a
>> simple testsuite addition to show the problem and desired result,
>> and don't get a response.
>> I don't believe the problem is as you think it is Jaak. Many
>> people whine about this or that. Not all whine for things to go in
>> the same direction.
>> Everyone whines for a release but not everyone is willing to help
>> submit tests and then fixes for those tests.
>> You stated that you would get involved to help, but you only
>> submit things for which I previously told you I wasn't interested
>> in accepting (worrying about pedantic warnings whose changes often
>> make the code less readable and do nothing to improve any of the
>> real problems for the end user. Though I do appreciate a few of
>> the warning fixes you submitted, a few being actual bug fixed too
>> (thank you)-- I'm just ranting right now.)
> As a BibleTime developer, I want to available tools (-Wall, -Wextra,
> cppcheck, etc) to fix any errors in my code. Due to the Sword header
> files which generate a lot of warnings this task is VERY inconvenient.
> For example, when I compile the whole of BibleTime with GCC, I get 549
> warnings from Sword headers (mostly for unused arguments) - how am I
> supposed to find the warnings relevant for BibleTime? This alone often
> makes it a pain to develop BibleTime and gives me enough reason to
> want to fork Sword.
> Turning on and fixing pedantic warnings will help find real bugs.
> FACT! Forcing developers to work blindfolded will not help anyone.
> The same tools can be used to find bugs in Sword code, and SHOULD
> regularly be used for this purpose to ensure code quality. As is
> obvious these are currently NOT BEING USED by Sword developers.
> However, when things eventually break, users complain to the BibleTime
> project. Hence, it is also in the interests of front-ends to ensure
> that the code of Sword is of good quality. Again - if Sword won't work
> to ensure this and wont let us in to fix things, we have another
> reason to fork.
> This again leads us to the issue of attracting new developers to
> Sword. I don't want to write on this more than necessary to provide a
> small argument for my conclusion. Afaik the current situation isn't
> working well. Biggest obstacles for me personally include working
> blindfolded, submitting patches by e-mail and not getting enough
> feedback for (ignored) patches and other emails.
> To conclude - maybe its just me, but altogether I really feel it were
> easier to maintain a parallel fork (at minimal to provide set of
> patches) than to waste my time writing long letters trying to make
> this relationship work in its current form. I accept whatever path the
> Sword project takes, but if it's not enough for the needs of BibleTime
> and our devs, we will make our own choices as well.
> The BibleTime team
> PS: I apologize if this late-night response is incomprehensible.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel