On 03/15/2013 05:42 PM, Nils R Grotnes wrote:
> > But I think if we were to ask other readers of this list if anything
> > I've said thus far could be construed as filibustering, I would *really*
> > be surprised if just one agreed with you.
>
> I do agree with him. In my opinion, your posts has be
I haven't reviewed all of the posts above. I just wanted to chime in to
comment/ask:
I prefer the single window scid, and use it in linux and mac. Does scid vs
pc work in linux easily? Is there any way to make it run in a single
window, like the old scid? I actually have scid vs mac installed, but
> But I think if we were to ask other readers of this list if anything
> I've said thus far could be construed as filibustering, I would *really*
> be surprised if just one agreed with you.
I do agree with him. In my opinion, your posts has been among the least
constructive, most dismissive of the
Please see my response between the lines below:
On 03/15/2013 02:50 PM, Ben St-Pierre wrote:
> Alan,
>
> So far, there are 70 comments.
>
> You made 9 comments.
>
> The first sells Scidvspc:
>
>> Scidvspc is a fork of scid with many improvements. It is also actively
>> maintained.
This is a ver
On 03/15/2013 12:19 PM, Ben St-Pierre wrote:
> Alan,
>
> I've just sent you a private email to settle personal matters. Here's
> what I'm willing to address publicly:
>
>> one cannot have a community of developers work in a single project in two
>> channels.
> This is not ideal, of course. But w
> i just looked at scidvspc code yesterday after a very long time and i must
> say that i'm a cautiously optimistic: a proper merge doesn't seems so
> impossible to me).
Here's an idea - why dont you actually have a good hard look at my
project and the improvements i have written, then continue th
Alan,
I've just sent you a private email to settle personal matters. Here's
what I'm willing to address publicly:
> one cannot have a community of developers work in a single project in two
> channels.
This is not ideal, of course. But we're not in an ideal situation.
And what I'm *proposing*
I agree with Alan... anyways if something is missing can be ported to
the merged version.
But I think we need to keep one version, one effort.
Saludos / Best regards
Mario Lacunza
Email:: mlacu...@gmail.com
Personal Website:: http://www.lacunza.biz/
OpenOffice.org Perú:: http://openoffice-peru.
On 03/15/2013 11:09 AM, Ben St-Pierre wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Please stop filibustering.
>
>
Ben,
I am *NOT* filibustering! I'm disagreeing with your point of view.
Are you the only one entitled to an opinion in this discussion? If so,
take your arguments to a private IRC channel and out of the publ
Alan,
Please stop filibustering.
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
_
On 03/15/2013 10:26 AM, Ben St-Pierre wrote:
> I just replied to a message by Alan on another list;
>
> So now we areback to square one.
>
>> Steveand Fulvio are scid admins but no merge will be performed.Because this
>> squabblehas failed to resolve what should have been an important milestone
>
I just replied to a message by Alan on another list;
So now we areback to square one.
> Steveand Fulvio are scid admins but no merge will be performed.Because this
> squabblehas failed to resolve what should have been an important milestone
> for the project, I think, for the most part, scid wi
Thank you, Alan, for confirming that there is a need for an agreement
among Scid's developers. I think we're closer to an agreement than the
underling message conveyed by that comment. (This comment should not
have been renamed, btw, since it belongs to the previous thread.)
Since Alan wants some
Henk van Lingen wrote:
> Several people on this list already asked what you mean by 'deleting
> the project'. There are lots of free software projects where version
> Y is a complete rewrite of version X. What's the problem with freezing
> scid 4.3, let the source-tree exist, and start with 4.9 wit
Steve A wrote:
> There is also the filter cache feature which he worked on with Gerd.
> It has bugs, has had bugs for a long time, and Gerd has now abandoned
> Scid development (he told me). I also don't like an aspect of it's
> design, so i propose not to adopt this feature.
>
If you mean the c
So now we areback to square one.
Steveand Fulvio are scid admins but no merge will be performed.Because
this squabblehas failed to resolve what should have been an important
milestone for the project, I think, for the most part, scid will
continue to lagway behind scidvspc in terms of usability
Sorry for the typos. Cordonnier mal chaussé...
Perhaps I should clarify this:
> I believe that's where we should discuss.
What I mean is that the discussion is now turning into the
**agreement** and **commitment** phase.
We need to have an summary statement of what's happening and what's
coming
I would like to contribute to the development of SCID. I have been an avid
user for years and am an experienced developer.
Can we all come together to move SCID from being an autocracy (this is its
history) to being a community effort? As SCID fans, we will all be better
off and a strong community
> I think this thread is evidence that there is a strong desire from the user
> base to revive the development of scid, and that there are people who are
> interested to help out. Count me among those. I guess it is also
> uncontroversial that having a larger development community can only benef
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Mario Lacunza wrote:
> El 14/03/13 11:13, Alan Whiteman escribió:
>> The only person not too happy about this is Fulvio. This is
>> understandable since years of his own efforts are being set aside. Of
>> course, his contributions will still live in the dev branche
Hi,
I think this thread is evidence that there is a strong desire from the
user base to revive the development of scid, and that there are people
who are interested to help out. Count me among those.
I guess it is also uncontroversial that having a larger development
community can only benefit the
Hi,
On 13 March 2013 15:42, Fulvio wrote:
> I'm sorry that you are experiencing so many crashes.
Since many people seem to have misunderstood me, let me clarify: I
don't have random crashes, but there is a specific bug that leads to a
segfault in my version of scid. If you do an "Open recent bas
Alan, I agree with you and therefore took my retirement.
Alan Whiteman wrote:
>On 03/14/2013 09:18 AM, Mario Lacunza wrote:
>> El 14/03/13 11:13, Alan Whiteman escribió:
>>> The only person not too happy about this is Fulvio. This is
>>> understandable since years of his own efforts are being se
>
> However, it's seems that i'm not able to explain myselft: i'm not
> challenging your interface design. If someone would have proposed the
> other way around, delete scidvspc code and replace it with scid code, i
> would have been equally upset.
> Many people today use free software, like Li
Alex wrote:
> Just if someone would be so kind to remove me from the projects members list,
> sf does not allow me to do this myself.
See you Alex. Thanks for your input.
Steve
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:01:34AM +0100, Fulvio wrote:
> - if the merge is technically too complicated, having both live
> separated is good.
> - deleting a free project without reason is bad.
Hi Fulvio,
Having various almost the same projects (scid, scidvspc, scidb, ...)
is bad. Users don't u
Steve A wrote:
> Fulvio - you are a great technical coder - the best here, and Scid
> would still be a slow clunker without you - but your project is filled
> with bugs, and you don't have a good a clue about making a good interface :)
> As is obvious from most everyones response here except yours,
My Mrs. will probably kill me but, I see this as a good cause for the greater
good.
I'm volunteering my project management skills to the project if the leaders
would have me. I already manage IT projects as a day job so...
Best Regards,
J
-Original Message-
From: till plewe [mailto:ti
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Joao Rita (Food Supply Chain &
Logistics Planning) wrote:
> Good Morning All,
>
> I'd like to contribute if I may. Thus far from what I've seen on the various
> threads everyone is in favour of the merge (yes there are some "challenges",
> but overall).
>
> What
Good Morning All,
I'd like to contribute if I may. Thus far from what I've seen on the various
threads everyone is in favour of the merge (yes there are some "challenges",
but overall).
What I sense is a lacking in actual project management. (btw I might be wrong
here, this is just my general
Fulvio wrote
> If you want to merge the two projects the only plan is to take one feature
> at the time, check the diffs and write patches for the current scid code.
Thanks for the olive branch Fulvio. I realise it must be hard to face having
some of your privilidges/code removed. But as the only
I welcome the idea to merge the projects. Scid vs. PC is the bug-fixed and
user-friendly version in the spirit of Shane Hudson (the initial creator of
Scid). Re-implementing the docked mode is a good idea - I think that merging
Scid's code for the docked mode into the code of Scid vs. PC is hard
32 matches
Mail list logo
