cuneiform team mailing list archive

[Jussi Pakkanen <jpakkane@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Yury V. Zaytsev <yury@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Does it mean that making the branches completely incompatible even in
> terms of licensing is a good idea?

Of course not, but the fact is that the two different branches are
most likely not going to merge.

For all you people wanting to change stuff in CF-linux: please do, try
crazy stuff, go nuts. BUT! If you want to merge your stuff back to the
mainline, please, do submit your stuff in small chunks. If you migrate
too far from trunk and just dump a multi-thousand line diff or
hundreds of commits to merge in bzr, your changes will most likely be
ignored. Not because they are bad, or because I hate you personally,
but because it is just too much work to review.

> At the present time the refactoring code seems to compile on Windows /
> MSVC, which is (if I'm not mistaken) not the case for the trunk.

At the moment, yes. But there was a gap of about 500 commits or so
where it did not work. I will not just take that diff and merge it as
is (as discussed above) plus that would probably lead to conflict
hell.

Trunk does work with MinGW but not with MSVC (though it does compile).
I believe this is due to renaming puma.dll to cuneiform.dll. The code
does some magical dlopen stuff against itself and for reasons I don't
understand or have time to find out, now fails on MSVC.