Re: opieII

Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello Lorn,
> 
> Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 9:59:07 PM, you wrote:
> 
> []
> 
>>>>>> http://projects.linuxtogo.org/projects/opie/
>>>>>   Er, if it's called OpieII, why it's project name is "opie"?
>>>> OpieII is just the name to distinguish it from Opie 1. Opie being the 
>>>> project name, because I assume it will be named Opie. :)
>>>
>>>   Sorry, but you asked for objections, and here it is: are there
>>> grounds for new product and project focused around *its* development
>>> (you told that "old" OPIE (opie0 ?) remains where it was) to be named
>>> just the same as old product/project hosted in another place?
> 
> 
>> I thought it was the best thing to do. I could have named it 
>> rumplestiltskin, but that is too many buttons to press when using 
>> commandlines.
> 
>> Originally I was going to just tag opie, and then delete all the files
>> in main to add the new code there. This presented a few undesirable 
>> things. :)
>> I could have started a new tree at handhelds, but then we would still 
>> have to deal with problems with admin of new developers and such. I 
>> could have tried to move the old code to linuxtogo with the new code, 
>> but then we would miss all the cvs versioning fun behind it.
> 
>> Best of both worlds is keep opie based on qtopia 1 here, start the 
>> project for qtopia 4.2 based opie at linuxtogo.
> 
>> and since there are very few developers left, I being one from since the
>> beginning, i took it upon myself to do these actions.
> 
>   Well, I don't ask you why you chose hosting details as you did - I'm
> noone to ask that. But asking about the name is something I can do
> merely as an "advanced user" who cares about such things as userbase
> confusion.

Thats why the descriptive name is OpieII. The project is still "Opie", 
regardless of version number.

> 
>   So, the quick suggestion I still have: please consider quickly,
> until something got imported into just created project, register new
> project space "opie2", to correspond to the name of the new product,
> and request deletion of the old one.
> 
>    That's going to be beneficial for new (sub)project first of all,
> as will clearly ring the bell that it's something new and exciting
> (because some part of userbase was already PRed into thinking that
> OPIE is something old and unmaintained), will save users from the
> confusion, and yes, should help you from getting flame a-la there was
> for GPE. (Note that my concern if first 2 points above, first of all.)
> 
> []
> 
>> I have disclosed my plans.
>> So far, that _is_ the plan -> being based on Qtopia 4.2. No plans other
>> than that at this time. First part of plan is to let TT release code so
>> we can fork it.
> 
>> Although I suggest we use some differing graphics, fix a few silly bugs
>> and things which I think are silly/not working yet in Qtopia, and add 
>> some new device configurations for all those poor fellows that have iPaqs.
> 
>   I guess, that's additional good reasons to use different name,
> even if it's "internal name hosting name". I personally wouldn't want
> that after so many years of many people's work, it turned out that all
> what "opie" is something waiting for upstream release to just

This is the reason given why so many core developers have moved on.. 
because they were waiting forever to get another updated code drop from 
Trolltech. This has even turned Mickey to the dark side...


> start, having vague feature requirements, and barely any working code.

This is nothing new to Opie. Its always been vague feature requirements. 
This is not a commercial endevour, and so we have no strict 
requirements, roadmaps, detailed project status meeting, or anything 
like that. Most of the work has been done as someone thinks of it and 
core developers reach consensus. After all, we are all volunteers and do 
this as a hobby.

Opie's roadmap is determined, in part, by Qtopia's roadmap. It would be 
good if we can leverage the 40 some developers now working on Qtopia as 
our own developers, and continue to apply TT's patches. Think of Opie v 
2/4 as Qtopia++.



> Because OPIE is not like that - it's UI framework in production state
> for many yes, suitable for immediate use. And most people won't notice
> difference in case. (But hopefully trained enough to known that X and
> X2 may be pretty different things.)

Then they can still use the qtopia 1 based Opie. and I recommend they 
use that until Opie version (2 or 4) is ready.



-- 
Lorn 'ljp' Potter
Trolltech Qtopia Community Manager
Opie Core Developer
http://qtopia.net
_______________________________________________

http://opie.handhelds.org/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/DeveloperWikiIndex

Opie-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://handhelds.org/mailman/listinfo/opie-devel