Re: ncurses 4.1

> Maybe, but only looking at the tiny part of your big list I know
> exactly:
> the wsync... stuff in lib_windows.c was totally broken. The same was
right. I didn't mention that because I was uncertain who'd broken it.

I forgot to mention winnstr - didn't work (I ran into that a couple of
months ago, applied a fix which Juergen in turn corrected).

> true with copywin(). You're right, you or somebody else hacked it in,
> but when I looked at it I had the impression that most of that was done
> without really understanding how things work together. I rewrote all
> this
> stuff completely. Actually my name is still in the sources in the
> comments.
> I guess Thomas is right: just implemented following a spec. And all of
> that
> are important functions for advanced curses apps like menu and form are.
I'd have more to say here, but most of those functions are not tested
anywhere in the examples, and my testing has been focused on the update and
optimization logic - so I'd find it likely that other functions are incorrect.
 
> Finally the 1.9.8 release with those last minute hacks wasn't working.
> That's not a sign of seniority.
right : 1.9.7a, 1.9.8a were fixup releases since 1.9.7 and 1.9.8 didn't work.
 
> Nevertheless I'll continue to honour all the valuable contributions you
> made and hopefully will make to ncurses. Without any doubt a lot of
> good stuff. If you only would test your code as seriously as Thomas
> does it...
I wish he did. I could take him more seriously in that case.
 
> I've several mails in my folders from last December when Zeyd asked
> Thomas to get his snapshots because Zeyd hadn't kept all the patches
> Thomas was the one doing all this. Zeyd said that he want's to
> see a 4.0 release ASAP. But then - lets say as usual in the last two
> years -
> he simply disappeared. If someone unbiased would read this mails I'm
> quite sure that he would interpret this as a "go, do it your own, I'm no
>
> longer interested".
That was my impression - I thought I had a consensus.
 
> A totally different story is the removal of your name from the
> maintainers
> list. You may remeber that I told the public that I don't agree to
> remove
> your name if you don't like that. That's still my position. You should
I believe that the disagreement over the term "primary maintainer" is
something that's due to very different interpretations by me and Eric.
Eric (in one of his last emails a few months ago) made it clear that he
did not associate the term with the development process, but rather as
as hybrid of manager and salesman. (Since he wasn't doing the bulk of
development/integration/testing last year, I can see that if those were
prerequisites, then he'd have to decline the honor). I could be persuaded
differently by a rational discussion, but I've gotten nothing of the sort
from Eric.

> be in
> the list and Thomas should be the one coordinating releases, because I
> still
> believe he's doing an excellent job. But as far as I understand that's
> not what
> you want. You want to have control and all the others should do the
> work.
That's exactly the way I see it.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
dickey_at_clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey