[Opensim-dev] future rexviewer merger

Sun Dec 7 13:47:03 UTC 2008

Well I never meant to suggest that we should use these tools if they arent
cross platform. I certainly did not suggest that, if they weren't, no one
should bring the subject up. I believe I also suggested that such adoption
needent be full-scale in the offing.

What I *did* say remains true: we have an obligation to move these tools
forward if we hope to benefit from them. And for those that can't afford the
time to assist with moving their native clients forward, there are
alternatives such as HomerH has just suggested.

As for complaints about the learning curve? They seem a bit tedious - there
*are* those in core who use these tools, and can and most likely will assist
in supporting them. The individuals in question certainly dont fail to
satisfy wrt any other requests for assistance. OpenSim has a learning curve
that is profound, and no other single application even remotely resembling
it is in common usage, so that curve pretty well starts at ground level.
Philosophically speaking, It feels a bit awkward to shy away from the kind
of effort we routinely require of others.

Reserve such decisions to core as you will - it certainly hasnt seemed to
impact the decision-making process of the other core members who have
adopted these tools successfully, in at least one case nearly a year past.

Just my *non-core* .02$L

Cheers
James

On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Michael Wright <michaelwri22 at yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

> I think its a bit different because we are talking about toolchains that we
> want to use in production enviorments. We always say opensim is still Alpha
> and not ready for production level use. I think it would be very bad to use
> alpha tools to try to develope opensim. Its just increasing the problems.
>
> Also people jump up and down and shout loudly when something might not work
> on Linux. So why can't people complain when things are unusable on windows?
> I know that if the linux tools were completely unusable then everyone would
> shout that we shouldn't even consider using them until it had better cross
> platform support. Sorry but thats just a personal little annoyance that I
> get from some of the things that are said/moaned about.
>
> But anyway I think the bigger problem for everyone is just the steep
> learning curve that (from most feedback) those system take to even be able
> to start using them.
>
> Its easy to say everyone should swap to Git/HG, but when you are the one
> who has to use tools that just don't really work very well as a result, its
> a different matter. So I think this is something for the core team to
> decide.
>
> And at this time my vote would be certainly -1 to swapping to them.
>
> *James Stallings II <james.stallings at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> Forgive me Adam, if I think this argument against Hg/GIT is a little leaky
> ;)
>
> The reason I say this is that 1) we depend on 'very very very alpha code'
> every day - in the corpus of the opensim work itself, and with the
> employment of custom clients like hippo and meerkat. 2) if we hope to see
> improvements in these toolchains that work to our benefit, we have an
> obligation to adopt, test, and report, just as we ask of the broader opensim
> community wrt the opensim project. This developement model works brilliantly
> for us - why wouldnt we participate in it's employment for a different
> important project?
>
> That being said, such an adoption needen't be simultaneously end-to-end -
> incremental and progressive adoption by some of our more adventurous windows
> devs might serve to inventory the trouble to be anticipated as adoption
> progresses, perhaps filing bug reports to get showstopping issues fixed, and
> blazing the trail forward into the more progressive and far more productive
> workflows supported by these tools.
>
> I think the benefits for the community are strong, and should be examined
> in this light, rather than dismissed because they are nacent. If we all took
> such a position, where would opensim be now?
>
> Cheers!
> James
>
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Frisby, Adam <adam at deepthink.com.au>wrote:
>
>>   I *wish* I could say that OpenSim's core dev team is getting the
>> message about the toolchains - this is something that hobbles many
>> innovators. Some have quietly adopted these newer toolchains for themselves,
>> but much of the benefits of this are lost because core still sits in an SVN
>> repo (yes, I am aware that Hg and GIT can work with SVN repos, but to do
>> things this way rather dilutes their strengths).
>>
>>  *GIT/Mercurial have completely retarded clients for
>> platforms-other-than-linux. The windows version for instance is
>> commandline-only which does not work anywhere near as efficiently as
>> TortoiseSVN/etc. (I am aware TortoiseHg/TortoiseGit do exist – but they are
>> in very very very alpha stage).*
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ===================================
> The wind
> scours the earth for prayers
> The night obscures them
>
> http://osgrid.org
> http://del.icio.us/SPQR
> http://twitter.com/jstallings2
> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>

-- 
===================================
The wind
scours the earth for prayers
The night obscures them

http://osgrid.org
http://del.icio.us/SPQR
http://twitter.com/jstallings2
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20081207/d58be872/attachment-0001.html>