/. wants a fork

[Chris Howe]

2009/5/25 Remco <remco47 at gmail.com>

> Oh great, now there is poison on slashdot:
>
> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/24/2044239
>
> Let's not fork, shall we?
>
> Remco
>
>
> Well, this is awkward.

For the record: I didn't intend to ambush anyone on here
with my frustrations, and I certainly wouldn't have chosen to
publicise them via Slashdot. Such is the nature of public
discourse, eh.

I don't think forking's the answer (and I'm certainly not putting
myself forward for that!) That said, there's only so long that
the issues of a proper DIB engine can go unadressed, and
I mean, it hasn't been addressed for some time, despite
the efforts of several people, latterly Massimo, to provide
at least proof of concept solutions. All that's really been
agreed upon is that what's there now can't be tweaked over
time to become the "right solution", but at the same time,
it can't be replaced wholesale as that might cause regression.
This would seem to be a logical impasse, and that's why
it needs a decision made, I think.

No one developer is going to be able to come out and write
the roadmap for it, because it needs broad input from a
lot of people, not just Alexandre. But certainly, as a starting
point, if it's so trivial to reject something on the grounds that
the architecture is WRONG it suggests that there is a
solution out there that's RIGHT, it just needs to be documented.

My intention was not to whine, (except that it's heartbreaking
to see good code go to waste over and over again) nor was it
my aim to throw stones, but to try and stimulate the required
discussion. If this list isn't the place for that,
then perhaps a section of the Wiki? Even just a timetable
for when it might be discussed? (As in, by release x.x.x, the
roadmap needs to have been agreed upon).

--
Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20090525/82789151/attachment.htm>