Re: FontAnvil 0.1

On 6 March 2014 00:38, Max Rabkin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Dave Crossland <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Is this a fontforge fork?
>
> It appears to be.
>
> I don't see the advantages of a fork for removing features. Isn't a
> build-time option better? Is it not already possible to build fontforge
> without dependencies on X? I'm sure I made such a build years ago.

We have been adding many dependencies to make code simpler and easier
to maintain, since the old codebase had a lot of IFDEF stuff
splattered all over the shop. This also makes the GUI experience
better, as its more consistent. Reuben Thomas has just applied some
patches to git master that make a few more things mandatory.

Using a scripting language that has a tiny user and developer
community seems to me like a dead end, and I won't use or promote it.
But if Matthew wants to maintain a fork, that's up to him, I wish you
luck :) I hope that you'll be able to benefit from our changes, and we
can cherry pick any fixes you make in our upstream (or you may be kind
enough to send a pull request with the patches directly :)


-- 
Cheers
Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce.
With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. 
Faster operations. Version large binaries.  Built-in WAN optimization and the
freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk