Re: planning 2.0?

I don't mean to pick on Ludovic or anyone else but this subthread is
starting to talk mostly about implementation issues and political
structures of the project, etc.

I'd like to suggest sticking to the three questions:

  1. Target Market?
  2. Target Market Needs?
  3. "Business" Model?


Note that portability questions can be answered more easily if we
have more consensus around questions (1) and (2).

Political questions can be more easily answered if we have more
consensus around question (3).

Even if this is to be a classic volunteer-operated public project: borrowing
some organizational ideas from business can help make it more efficient,
effective, and satisfying (IMO, of course).

-t






Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Peter Conrad <[email protected]> writes:
>
>   
>> any software should be targeting its users' needs, not the political
>> goals of the supporting organization.
>>     
>
> Well, whether you like it or not, the GNU project _is_ political.
>
>   
>> Hard links are an optimization. tla works (or could work) fine 
>> without them.
>>     
>
> Right, but this optimization has a significant impact on performance.
>
>   
>> Long paths aren't neccessary for a good archive format, so I wouldn't
>> call the path length an "unacceptable design constraint".
>>     
>
> Right, the archive format could probably be modified to be less
> demanding on path length.
>
> That said, this really is a limitation, I'd even say a flaw, of the
> underlying OS.  You wouldn't want to worry about 8.3 file names for
> instance, would you?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludovic.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
>
>