Re: [Ginp-developers] Real activity?

[Brian B. <br...@Pi...>]

David Kerber wrote:
> As I've dug into the code a bit, it looks to me like a lot of that 
> "dead" code, is actually "unborn" rather than "dead".  What I mean is 
> that a lot of it appears to be framework code, intended to make it easy 
> to add new features, and not old code left over from previous changes.  
> It's rather complex and a lot of it has a pretty high level of 
> abstraction, but as I get my mind around it, it appears to be pretty 
> well written, and will probably make it easy to add the features I'm 
> working on.

Yes, I agree that "unborn" is a better description. My own opinion last 
year was that the complexity and abstraction wasn't taking the project 
in a direction that was useful to me. I'm pleased (as would be the 
authors) that it is proving useful to you.

> That complexity and abstraction means I'm going slower than I had 
> initially hoped, but I'm making progress, and will post back all my 
> changes as they're completed.  It's just tough sometimes to find the 
> best spot to add my new commands and processing code.

I don't have much time and motivation to add complex changes to the 
repository and test them thoroughly. However, if you are doing something 
that is likely to be of use to others, I don't want to keep them out. 
I'll review your changes and add them if appropriate - keep them small 
and localised as separate updates.

I strongly suggest you spend some time learning to maintain and build 
your local project with SVN and Maven... I will be happy to promote you 
to a project contributor once you are safe to update the source on your 
own. There is a lot to be said for drawing a line and making a new minor 
distribution release available for download.

> BTW, does "GINP" stand for something?  I assume the 'G' stands for 
> "Gnu", but can't come up with anything that fits for the rest of the 
> acronym.

It made sense to me a while ago. I'll let you know if I remember.

Regards,

Brian