Kamujin's picture

Write access to the SVN

Can I get write access to the SVN?

(Sorry, I PM'd you a while back, but I'm not sure you got it)


Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Kamujin's picture

Fiddler?

Kamujin's picture

Fiddler? You there?

objarni's picture

Kamujin; I don't think Fiddler is ready to let anybody get write access yet.

Can't you post your modifications/additions here in the forum?

Kamujin's picture

That's what I've been doing, but its really not working out very well. It has been suggested that Fiddler could create a branch for us to work in, so that he could maintain control over the main code body. I think this is a reasonable compromise.

At the very least Fiddler, you need to talk to us. We're trying to work with you. I don't understand your lack of response to legitimate questions.

objarni's picture

Actually, Fiddler I'm starting to get worried.. :)

Where are you??

Inertia's picture

Do not misunderstand Fiddler being silent as ignoring you. As far as I know him, he will not give a reply unless he's 99.95% certain that he can stand behind the answer - even if someone quotes him.

We agreed some time ago that Fiddler is responsible for GL related parts of OpenTK. I'm responsible for AL. We had a discussion before deciding that, and both agreed that it's best if 1 Person performs quality control before anything makes it to SVN. One of the major reasons why that is, is that most OpenTK users pull the latest version directly from svn rather than using the pre-built library. Giving random access to anyone would easily cause headaches by changes/additions made by users, regardless whether the intention was good or not. Yes, one can always revert, but the GL and AL core bindings do not really require any more modifications that I know of. Yes, the mathlib and utilities libraries can be extended to infinity, but I think it's sane that Fiddler has his thumb on the decision what is added and what isn't.

Kamujin's picture

1) The GameWindow and related classes have issues that need to be addressed. I have made numerous submission related to these issues.

2) The OS X support is broken as far as I can tell. I think the current system frustrates the efforts of those who are sincerely trying to help.

3) The math libraries are not homogeneous with each other. This is something that could easily be improved without breaking the core design.

I can understand the integrity argument, but why not have a branch that we can use to contribute ideas and fixes? If Fiddler likes them, he merges them. If the hates them, he reverts them. Either way, the main branch is unaffected!

With all due respect, leadership is not about being 99.99% sure of yourself. It's about managing a group of talented people towards a common goal. It seems there are a good number of talented people who are interested in this project. Engage them.

objarni's picture

I'm not a svn-branching-master, but doesn't that have its headaches too..? Like keeping the branches integrated?

If those problems could be kept low, that seems like a great "middle way" in this situation.

kanato's picture

I think this is the sort of thing that branching is for. There's a branch for my Mac OS patch but it hasn't been applied. It seems to work on my end if I checkout that branch and apply the patch to it but I guess other people have not had success. I don't know if the problem is with the patch itself or applying it, and I was sort of waiting for feedback on applying it to the macos branch which I never got, then I got busy with other things and I haven't had time to look into it. It would be much easier to get feedback if I could apply the patch to a repository myself.

If Fiddler doesn't want us applying stuff to the official SourceForge OpenTK repository, maybe we could find another SVN repository to use for contributions? Then we could collaborate on other modifications until they are fixed up enough to be applied to the main branch. Well, it's just a thought. But I think for the Mac OS support it's going to be hard to improve it if people have to checkout the branch and then apply the patch before it can be tested.

Inertia's picture

I've just stated the last information about the topic I got. At that point of time the core bindings were still work-in-progress so this decision was imho the right thing to do. Right now, with upcoming 0.9.2 I think it's not the perfect point of time to change this, but once it's there I see no reason why not to do this. However care must be taken that there's not an explosion of branches with multiple people working on solutions for the same problems (Fonts jump into mind here, because everyone seems have have a different opinion and needs regarding this).

No offense, but I really think you guys need to take the picture you have of how companies work - which you applied to OpenTK - and throw it overboard. Although Fiddler is the father of OpenTK, I don't think he really wants to be the boss. I'm not Fiddler's PR guy or something, if so I should probably get fired asap because I'm not making false promises and lie to people in order to sell our "product" :P

Maybe a picture can say more than 1000 words.
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

In standard-thinking this image would be utterly wrong. The core should be molten, and the outer border would be solid. OpenTK is simply different ....

@Kamujin There's quite a difference between Leader and Manager. Both take responsibility for their decisions, but a Leader must be optimist and look at things with a long-term perspective while Managers look at things in a short-term perspective and rely on patterns that have proven to work before.