[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnash-commit] [SCM] Gnash branch, hwaccel, updated. release_0_8_9_f

From: Rob Savoye
Subject: Re: [Gnash-commit] [SCM] Gnash branch, hwaccel, updated. release_0_8_9_final-1079-ga77b2d1
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:27:26 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10

On 08/08/11 12:12, Benjamin Wolsey wrote:

> It would be easier for everyone else if it's fixed before going into
> master. I don't see any reason why it should be simpler for you to clean
> up after merging evident bugs into a branch that's supposed to be
> stable, but I do see a strong likelihood that they'd get merged and then
> just left there, much like the cygnal code.

  Some of us still test Cygnal, just cause you don't do anything with it
doesn't mean there is a problem. I'm only going to say this once again,
and hope to not restart the endless flame war. I have a much different
style of development than you do, and will continue to work on Gnash my
own way. There is no consensus on "the one true way" to write code,
especially amongst Gnash developers. I let you developer code your way,
you have to let me develop it my way.

 None of the bugs pointed out in your old post would be seen by anyone
using desktop Gnash. Note I haven't said I won't fix those few minor
issues at all, you're just assuming the worst. This will be easier if we
limit the discussion to technical issues than imagining ones that don't
even exist yet.

  The other issues like OpenVG support for GTK on the desktop are big
enough tasks that doing them in the existing branch is more hassle than
it's worth.

        - rob -

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]