Oh yeah, now I remember why I went with swish-e...
My point was that is would be great to have the source code
open via a remote RCS system, so someone could simply
check out the files they wanted to change and have the rest
of the code come out of the "official" source code repository.
I also think that a group-effect is probably more suited to
the jump to distributed development since they might have
the resources to host the RCS system. I also think that a
group has more built-in checks and balances, and can be
more tolerant to new users and requests for features than
some one-person projects that come to mind.
Lastly, I figured C++ is the way to go from here on out (vs C).
esp since there was already a considerable effort along
those lines, and that effort had substantial benefits such as
improved performance and robustness when dealing with large
indexes. From what I've seen you did a great job with swish++
and moving both efforts into one common project could have
been of value to everyone. Oh well.
At 09:45 AM 11/2/98 -0800, Paul J. Lucas wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Mark Gaulin wrote:
>> Right now swish-e is the "official" version and swish++ is (correct me
>> wrong) one person's effort.
> Both packages are under the GPL. I consider them to be on
> equal footing in terms ov availability and changeability. As
> far as being "official," I would say that, no, SWISH++ is not
> "officially" part of the SWISH-E effort, but SWISH-E is not
> part of the SWISH++ effort either. Presumeably, SWISH-E is
> endorsed by Berkeley, but, outside of Berkeley, that doesn't
> mean anything.
> As far as being "one person's effort," I fail to see what that
> has to do with anything or somehow makes SWISH++ subordinate to
> a multi-person effort (which is what I infer from what you
> wrote). The number of people who work on a software project is
> unrelated to the functionality or quality of the software.
> Some big examples of good single-person efforts: vi (Bill Joy),
> emacs (Richard Stallman), Perl (Larry Wall), TeX (Donald
> Knuth), C++ (Bjarne Stroustrup).
>> In either case it is difficult for any programmers other than the people
>> directly in charge of the code to make changes. It would be nice if a
>> distributed, "open source" system was put in place so that individual
>> contributors could get in, make changes, and get out.
> Excuse me? Both packages are under the GPL. That mens anybody
> is free to grab the source and makes changes. If that isn't
> "open" I don't know what is.
> FYI: I've already received some patches for SWISH++ and
> incorporated them. The authors of said patches apparently had
> no trouble obtaing the source code and making changes.
>> And, for the record, I would love to use C++ over C for this, or any
>> Hey, maybe porting swish-e to C++ would solve those nagging
>> C porting issues we had when 1.3 was released.
> Well, yes, porting SWISH-E to C++ would solve that problem, but
> so would porting it to ANSI C (which I had always assumed it
> was, but, from reading others' experiences, I guess it isn't).
> IMHO, there's no excuse for having a non-ANSI C program these
> - Paul
Received on Mon Nov 2 10:29:30 1998