Re: [Notion-devel] the agenda

[M R. <mr...@gm...>]

On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 00:57 +0200, Ole Jørgen Brønner wrote:
> >> Couple questions:
> >> 1. Are we basing the fork on ion-3 stable, and not the development branch (ion-3plus)?
> >> I'm not really sure how much differences there is, but are there reasons not to base it on the development branch? (ion-3plus seems quite stable to me)
> >
> > ion-3plus does not include libtu and libextl, which means they need to
> > be compiled separately before you can compile notion. ion-3 resembles
> > more what what notion should look like when it's released, and we can
> > always add ion-3plus' changes later.
> 
> Well, I'd say it's easier (not any job at all really) to add libtu and
> libextl to ion-3plus than backporting the changes from ion-3plus
> later. (I guess that would involve more license complications too?)

the separate libtu and libextl are missing their makefiles, and
considering that all the work can be done with one patch application,
i'd say it's about the same, also both versions have the same licence so
i wouldn't worry about complications.

> >> 2. Do you have the darcs repo for the stable branch? (ion-3)
> >
> > all the ion3-related code is available here: http://github.com/gwash
> 
> But that doesn't contain the darcs repo? (_darcs folder) If we had the repo for both branches it would be easier to see the differences.

sure, but nothing that diff can't do...

> > we need a lawyer!
> 
> Agreed! (or some clarifications from Tuomo, but doesn't seem to be very responsive)

I'd say screw it, let him sue, he doesn't have any legal grounds (saying
"section 'x' is void" does not automagically make it so)


M Rawash