gnucobol-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [open-cobol-list] X86_64 branch ?


From: Bernard Giroud
Subject: Re: [open-cobol-list] X86_64 branch ?
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:25:53 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130330 Thunderbird/17.0.5

Hi,
Le 24/02/2014 15:51, Patrick a écrit :
[...]
My facts:

1)Open Cobol goes back to 2001 and tinycobol precedes this.
True.
[...]

Is it fair to say that everyone that has committed code to the project
has access to a mainframe?
No.

Is it fair to say that in the 13+ years of development < 10 people have
contributed code?
No. Taking into account that TinyCobol has preceded OpenCobol, you have to add at least Rildo Pragana, David Essex and Andrew Cameron as main contributors, plus a few secondary ones. I guess alltogether probably around 20.

I repair circuit boards for a living and service spectrometers. If I am
intimidated with a codebase, it could easily be because I don't have
enough programming experience but it seems to me that this codebase is
very difficult for people to contribute to. It seems to me that there is
a lot of platform correction code and most of us don't have access to
many of the platforms.

If I want to add feature FOO how do I ensure it will work on an
architecture I will never have access to?

What if we created a branch and simplified the codebase? I would be
willing to try this, although I may never get the time to finish.
Simplifying is rarely simple ;-) IMO you would end up with a fork,
and either forget about new features or corrections, or spend a huge
amount of time to try to catch up with the trunk.
And I guess you would be probably alone to maintain your code base.

The main codebase could continue, the mainframe guys could take code as
they see fit and the desktop people could work away. Sure the two could
get out of sequence but at the pace things are moving at right now,
would that really be such a big deal?
Which means 2 forks out of a good product. Even worse...



Bernard



reply via email to

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