[sword-devel] Announcing Sword++
Peter von Kaehne
refdoc at gmx.net
Mon Sep 26 09:43:58 MST 2016
Given that there is, just as Matej points out, likely only "market" space for one library , I think success of your fork will mean exactly this - regression and breakage for those parts you are not interested in. You have made this very clear.
But, I guess, you are not in a mood to listen to this.
Sent from my phone. Apologies for brevity and typos.On 26 Sep 2016 10:27 am, Jaak Ristioja <jaak at ristioja.ee> wrote:
> On 26.09.2016 10:56, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> > We are supporting 32 bit devices and operating systems for the foreseeable future. Emails on sword-support confirm that.
> I have no problem with Sword doing that. But you can't force Sword++ to
> do that, unless of course you get involved and help out to maintain
> support for such devices and environments. Currently Sword++ is
> prioritizing Linux systems on x86_64 architecture, because that is the
> only hardware/software environment the only developer (me) has
> reasonable access to. Second, I am currently prioritizing refactoring
> over portability to specific platforms because of limited time.
> Foremost, I intend to write modular, highly portable C++, but not to do
> all the porting right away. I don't expect x86_32 failures in the near
> foreseeable future. Support for non-POSIX-like systems like Windows will
> probably turn most acute, but I guess it will have to wait for someone
> else to take the lead on that. C++ Filesystem TS and Networking TS might
> help thou.
> > I am arguing against careless breakage.
> None of what is done in Sword++ will break Sword, only perhaps
> illuminate some things which
> > Bindings and utilities are an absolute necessity, 32 bit support may well be necessity for a good while longer and the keeping small of the list of compulsory dependencies has reasons too.
> I prioritize working on the core library over all else. To function
> efficiently at this stage, I'm currently dropping those from the Sword++
> repository to keep it simple and slim. This will help me focus on what I
> think is more important for Sword++ in this stage. I'm currently keeping
> the utilities, but may move them to a separate git repository in the
> future. Making a number of dependencies non-optional also serves the
> same purpose of helping me to work effectively, given my resource
> constraints, mostly in time. The build system and code logic for making
> support of some of those dependencies optional was broken, so it was
> easier for me to remove that cruft and move on.
> As I stated in my original announcement: feel free to contribute, feel
> free to merge code back to Sword. After all, it's open source. :)
> Many blessings,
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel