[Idle-dev] DS_RPC_BRANCH

[Kurt B. Kaiser]

"Stephen M. Gava" <elguavas@python.net> writes:

> On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 08:00, Kurt B. Kaiser wrote:
[...]

> > Stephen M. Gava wrote:
> > > and there would be no patches getting lost 
> >
> > If you are talking about the Unicode patch, it didn't get lost.  I
> > wiped it out by accident when I ripped out the DS_RPC code in
> > OutputWindow.py.  Patrick O'Brien was kind enough to test GRPC and
> > post the bug.
> 
> Well, I guess that's just semantics. ;^) I call that "getting lost" at
> least temporarily, you call it "being wiped by accident then replaced".
> The net result for cvs users was that the patch was lost from recent
> checkouts.

I would have croaked it even if we were working on one branch.  

[...]

> >    I continue to think we should have a final release of the DS RPC
> >    version of Idlefork.  
> 
> Please re-read my earlier detailed response to this suggestion. I guess
> it sounds pretty simple to just pop out a release, but actually it's a
> lot of work. 

I'll be happy to do it.  Especially if the VP guys would like one; we
haven't had one for a year.

> Again I think we must avoid nice sounding in theory makework that
> steals what little time we have between us away from what we
> actually need to be focusing our limited energies on: getting out
> some tarballs of 0.9x with all the new stuff in for people to test.
> Let me try and explain myself. My focus in all of this has not been
> on the most theoretically perfect way of proceeding, it has been
> purely on managing a project with very limited resources in such a
> way that I hope we will achieve the main desired result. Sometimes
> that approach does not equal doing things the most theoretically
> perfect way. If you are unhappy with my attempts to carry out my
> role with the project, which is not only developer but manger and
> coordinator, then I am happy to drop back to just being a developer
> if you want to take over that coordinating role and move things in a
> different direction, honestly, I could well do without the extra
> grief.

Up to you.
 
> > You seem to be telling me to hurry up and finish the conversion to
> > GRPC so that you don't have to feel slighted by being "stuck" on a
> > branch that doesn't have the tag "MAIN" :) Hey, it's only a name!
> 
> C'mon Kurt, why would I care about that? Man. My concern, which I've
> restated several times, is that splitting active development over two
> branches will be inefficient and not really in the best interests of the
> project. I think that has proven 

What has "proven" this?  What is the problem?  It's been fine for me,
what is the impact on you?  There is nothing stopping you from doing
any development you want.  As I said, I'm not afraid of merges, and
what I've seen so far is a couple hours' work, which is absolutely
minor compared with what I've put in recently.  The freedom from not 
worrying about screwing people up is well worth it to me.

> to be the case. I reiterate that the idea of tagging a branch with
> the old rpc code was a good one, but I don't think dividing our
> developer effort was.

[...]

> > Once I get DS_RPC running in my sandbox, I'll run my little test suite
> > on it and then do a merge to MAIN right away so we can be "on track".
> 
> Yes, you may want to wait until I have a chance to sort out PyShell's
> dirty AutoIndent code. I guess it doesn't matter though, as long as
> those fixes are also propagated over to DS_RPC_BRANCH so that I'm not
> knowingly leaving any major breakage there.

I certainly don't want to merge anything that isn't working :)

Actually, looking at the AutoIndent stuff, why "de-factor" it,
especially if it is wired into EditorWindow.py in other than a trivial
way?  It increased the size of EditorWindow by over 50% to a rather
bloated 1350 lines.  (PyShell.py is only 875.)  What's the advantage?
Why not just revert it?

Regards, KBK