discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: removing spatial viewer from GWorkspace


From: Riccardo Mottola
Subject: Re: removing spatial viewer from GWorkspace
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:52:27 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100418 SeaMonkey/2.0.4

Hi,
It was added after a discussion on the mailing list long ago, it was a popular 
opinion.
This is usually a good reason for keeping something, but then...

it is indeed, but many people didn't like it back then either. I am investigating if opinions changed. Some features are a bit a "hype", they come with a trend, they fade silently again.
I never use it
Neither is this - there is lots of stuff in GNUstep that I don't use, but try not to break just for the sake of it (or, at least, which I apologise to Richard about when I do break it).
I am trying to understand if there are other users of it and if, how many.
and it adds code in GWorkspace that needs to be kept from bitrotting.
Bit rot generally only happens when you make large changes to GWorkspace.  My 
understanding is that you are currently just engaged in bug fixing and making 
GWorkspace into something less of an unmaintainable mess, so bit rot should not 
be a big issue.
Currently yes, version 0.8.8 which I intend to release soon shall be more a maintenance release of bug fixes, build issues, crashes and general code clean-up. However, while looking a th the code base, it is legit to look in the future.
The correct time to ask this question is when you've made, or about to make, 
changes that will make the spacial mode difficult to maintain.  If there is 
only one user of a feature, but it takes very little effort to maintain, then 
it's a bad idea to delete it - all that we do is alienate users for no gain.
Assessing the usage is my current goal. Currently the code has a wide degree of duplication, which enhances the effort of maintenance. If it is deemed a truly essential feature a way of factoring out common code about the two modes and thus enhancing maintenance needs to be found.

Thom's answer is so rough and impulsive that maybe it is not even trustworthy that he is really using it!


Cheers,
  Riccardo



reply via email to

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