Re: [vimplugin-devel] Current state of the project

[David T. <dav...@gm...>]

Hey Sebastian and Martin,

Sebastian Menge wrote:
> How can we join forces? We are at least four (more or less active)
> developers: Martin, Nageswar, David and myself. That sounds like a fine
> little team ...

Really two questions I guess:

  1) Who's hosting?

  2) Who's Code?

1.
Comes down to SourceForge (SF) vs Google Code (GC) a little so here is 
my comparison of the two:

Basically SF has more features and flexibility but also is more complex 
and requires more work to maintain because of  this. Google Code is 
simpler but less power.

  - SF requires a fairly detailed registration of a project and approval 
by a SF staff, GC is simple and instant approval.

  - Both have SVN: pretty much exactly the same. (Google code only 
offers SVN)

  - Web space: SF has own web space area where you can put whatever you 
like and supports PHP and some other CGI stuff from. GC doesn't have any 
web space but instead provides you with a simple Wiki.

  - File Downloads: SF uses ftp to upload your files and supports 
grouping of files and associating a group with a version number. GC uses 
a simple web page upload tool and doesn't have any concept of versions, 
so you just use the download title to tell users. Uses tags to describe 
the download (e.g a 'featured' tag makes the download appear on the 
front page and a 'depreciated' tag hides them from the download lists 
default view).

  - Development Support tools: Both have issue trackers, fairly 
comparable, but I find GC nicer with looks and the way it easily 
supports commenting/conversations on items. SF has mailing lists, GC 
uses Google groups for mailing lists. These are nicer IMHO since they 
have a great web based interface which makes them like a forum. SF has 
forums, GC doesn't but Google groups can server both roles well.

I would say I prefer GC, I have some bad memories of using CVS with SF 
before they brought out SVN. The only area SF beats GC in is that they 
provide your own web space while GC just provides a simple wiki. (Not 
having FTP support for uploading files would be an issue for larger 
projects as well but not for us).

So for me the web space is the only issue. If we were creating something 
more graphical or for average users I would say SF since the website 
would be fairly important. But since its an application for developers, 
the look isn't as important.

Other issue is though that vimplugin has a lot more profile while eeedit 
has virtually none.

2.
Our code is a logical continuation of Sebastian code. (Not the one using 
a terminal emulator, but a new experimental version he started working on).

It uses the netbeans protocol supported by Vim to communicate between 
Eclipse and Vim. I would think that there is no question between 
Sebastian's code and eeedits code since as I said its a continuation. 
Not sure about Martin's code, I will have a look at it when I have time.

I would think most likely it would make sense to work from our code base 
but I will have a look at Martin's work first.

Also, I have forwarded all the emails from this thread to eeedit's 
mailing list so that hopefully the other developers can weigh in on the 
issue. There are three of us, Nageshwar M, Edward L. Fox (very recently 
joined) and myself.

Best regards,

David Terei

> Sebastian.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> vimplugin-devel mailing list
> vim...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vimplugin-devel
>