Re: neat paper

David Crawshaw wrote:

>
> On 29/03/2004, at 2:10 AM, Charles Goodwin wrote:
>
>>> http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/papers/lenses.pdf
>>
>>
>> This may sound a bit strange, but do you intentionally ignore us
>> until there's nothing 'cool' to occupy your time?
>
>
> Or: he's got a fellowship that pays him to read and write CS papers. 
> Occasionally he sees an interesting one and posts it on, while feeling 
> bad about watching his Inbox grow with so many Ibex TODOs.
>
> That's what happens to me. I don't get paid to work on Ibex, I DO get 
> paid to work on other software, and I PAY to go to Uni. These things 
> have to take precedence over Ibex.
>
> From my perspective, it costs me money to work on Ibex. I'm certain 
> Adam is in the same boat.
>
> If the coffin needs any more nails: He's given you the source code. 
> *Any* problem you have can be fixed yourself and put somewhere else on 
> the Internet. The only thing you don't have control over is the Ibex 
> trademark and domain name.
>
> Cut the man some slack. He's done more work on this project than the 
> rest of us combined.
>
> -- d
>
First of all, let me agree with Charlie's response to this message, 
acknowledging that he was being overly crtical, but that there still 
some legitimate issues behind the complaints.

The vast majority of the complaints coming from me and Charlie haven't 
been that Adam has been too slow to write patches. We recognize that 
he's busy, and we have the source. And we have in fact been doing the a 
large portion of the bug fixes to core that have been blocking widget 
development in the last couple of months. The complaints (from my point 
of view)  are that our efforts to move things forward have hindered by 
non-responsiveness to:
1) bug fixes that we have posted
2) questions about the nature of correct behavior and theory of 
implementation

We are doing exactly what you suggest. We both have publicly accesible 
darcs archives containing our patches, but we *don't* want to move in 
the direction of a fork unless absolutely necessary. All that Charlie 
(and I) was asking for was a bit more responsiveness in dealing with the 
issues that we highlight on the mailing lists.

The nature of where core is vs. where the widgets are right now is that 
any substantial delay in resolving a blocker core bug can stop widget 
development almost completely in its tracks. We are doing our best to 
move things forward, but we are hindered by our relative newness to the 
core. I never patched nor used Lithium, and Charlie has (until the last 
few days) focused almost exclusively on widgets instead of the core.

We all want a succesful Ibex. We're just asking for some friction 
reduction to help move things along faster.

-Tupshin