16 messages in com.perforce.jamming[jamming] Re: Your Jam changes| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Alan Burlison | 06 Nov 2001 08:18 | |
| David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams) | 06 Nov 2001 08:30 | |
| Alan Burlison | 06 Nov 2001 08:37 | |
| Craig McPheeters | 06 Nov 2001 11:35 | |
| Craig McPheeters | 06 Nov 2001 11:56 | |
| Alan Burlison | 06 Nov 2001 15:10 | |
| Alan Burlison | 08 Nov 2001 15:24 | |
| Alan Burlison | 08 Nov 2001 15:40 | |
| Alan Burlison | 08 Nov 2001 17:20 | |
| David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams) | 08 Nov 2001 18:01 | |
| David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams) | 08 Nov 2001 18:07 | |
| David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams) | 08 Nov 2001 19:16 | |
| David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams) | 08 Nov 2001 21:26 | |
| Alan Burlison | 09 Nov 2001 00:34 | |
| David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams) | 09 Nov 2001 04:35 | |
| David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams) | 09 Nov 2001 08:48 |
| Subject: | [jamming] Re: Your Jam changes |
|---|---|
| From: | Craig McPheeters (cmcp...@aw.sgi.com) |
| Date: | 11/06/2001 11:56:41 AM |
| List: | com.perforce.jamming |
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 16:37:30 +0000 From: Alan Burlison <Alan...@sun.com> CC: cmcp...@aw.sgi.com, jamm...@perforce.com Subject: Re: Your Jam changes
David Abrahams wrote:
I'm interested in most of Craig's enhancements, so if you want to merge them into our source base I'd be happy to look at your patches.
I wouldn't mind doing this if I was fairly confident that the result would actually work for us, and ascertaining that that was the case will itself take some considerable time. I'm not desperate for this, as I can easily test using the existing versions, I'm more concerned by the apparent (?) lack of coordination between the 3 (?) versions of Jam that seem to be floating around.
I wouldn't be overly concerned about the different versions. Its a good thing.
The different versions each seem to have different policies for accepting changes. The policy in my branch is that I would accept changes (from myself) which were as minimal as possible and enabled the use of Jam on large internal projects. My policy was to avoid changes to the language where possible, with a goal of minimizing the differences in order to ease future integrations from the mainline, and the reverse.
The policy in the FTjam branch seems more open to changes in the language, and other non-critical-but-useful changes. I like some of the extensions David has created, although they don't match the policy I have established for my branch. Different design goals, its all perfectly natural.
I'm not sure what the policy is in the mainline yet. Without an established policy its hard to know what types of changes to propose. Give it time though, I am. :-)
This is one of the benefits of open source, although I agree there is an associated complexity.
Alan Burlison
Cheers, Craig.