[sword-devel] I implore you...

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Glad to hear Jaak.  Your patches were committed with log messages as:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r2779 | scribe | 2013-01-29 01:06:01 +0100 (Tue, 29 Jan 2013) | 2 lines

Committed patch to safely bypass warnings for unused variables in empty 
virtual methods in headers (Jaak Ristioja)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r2778 | scribe | 2013-01-26 16:21:20 +0100 (Sat, 26 Jan 2013) | 2 lines

Fixed = -> == operator for LZSS compression type (Jaak Ristioja)



On 06/10/2013 08:57 AM, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
> Ah, sorry! The warnings come from building against the latest version of
> Sword. I think they might be fixed in SVN. I tracked the respective
> change back to a commit, but the commit message didn't say anything
> about it (SVN 2690).
>
> I hope the new version will be released soon.
>
> Jaak
>
> On 10.06.2013 09:43, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>> Jaak,
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Troy
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/09/2013 11:55 PM, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Blessings,
>> Jaak
>> The BibleTime team
>>
>>
>> PS: I apologize if this late-night response is incomprehensible.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20130610/600e7245/attachment-0001.html>