Re: arch 2.0 survey followup

Mark Flacy wrote:
> I won't agree that Windows support is critical for GNU software.
>
There are no clear, generally applicable, specific-enough-to-be-useful,
non-bleeding-obvious policy statements about the GNU project anymore.
Not that are relevant to anything serious.   It is arguably a corpse that
hasn't started stinking too badly yet.

The FSF has clear enough missions and I more or less endorse them
(with reservations about some of their legal interpretations of the GPL).
But the GNU project itself is currently just an amorphous mess whose
only main requirements are to not F-up the FSF's mission and, ideally,
to give the FSF something to talk about.


>
>>
>> * A GUI is critical. A thought that Tom and I discussed previously 
>> was to build a GUI using a web framework like Ruby on Rails that has 
>> very good ajax functionality so that a rich GUI can be built that is 
>> cross platform and can be run either in a client server enviro or as 
>> a desktop app. Designing the system with thoughts about a GUI now 
>> using a light framework atop of the system would be a big win, 
>> particularly when one of the potential users is a manager (see 
>> scenario above).
>
> Umm, sure, if that's what you think.
>
> From my experience in a rather large software development company, my 
> managers don't really care to use a version control system.  They are 
> more interested in the integration of a version control system and a 
> software defect reporting/tracking system.  They want to be able to...
>
> 1) Track who changed what.
>
> 2) Associate certain versions of files with a release of a software 
> product.
>
> 3) Associate certain changes with certain bug fixes.
>
> 4) Apply the changes associated with certain bug fixes to older and 
> newer versions of the product from where the bug was reported.
>
> 5) Provide some control over the submission of changes so that 
> designers do not submit without architect approval of the changes 
> during normal product development.
>
> 6) Provide some control over the submission of changes so that 
> designers cannot submit code without managerial approval during the 
> testing phase of product development.
>
>
> Managers *don't* use version control themselves; the presence or 
> absence of a GUI really doesn't matter to them.  They want to manage 
> their software development and that normally require control over the 
> process.  They would find a GUI to manipulate those controls to be 
> useful.
>

You seem confused.   To argue that managers won't be using revision 
control, you provide six examples of how they will be using revision 
control.

That is unfair of me.  You have the very valid point that a lot of mgrs 
have an existing  bug-tracker (and other component) investment and will 
more want their GUI interface to Arch to be via those components rather 
than Arch on its own.   Sarcasm aside -- yes, I do have to think about 
how to integrate that very astute observation.  (thanks).



>
> It has also been my experience that any system relying upon a GUI to 
> get anything done is going to suck ass, unless the things being done 
> are rather simple.  Version control can have complex moments.
>
> Of course, if you believe that Windows support is critical you would 
> (by necessity) believe that a GUI is critical.
>

I'm totally with you in a couple of ways:

1) CLIs rock for certain things.
2) Windows mostly sucks.