<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <<a href="mailto:mpgritti@gmail.com">mpgritti@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I'm trying to form my opinion about inclusion of Pippy and Develop in Sucrose 0.82. Here is my understanding: * Pippy is well maintained and tested but it's supposed to be just a stop gap solution. For the future we will be focusing on Develop. * Develop is not very mature and tested yet. Jameson is the only developer and he is not sure if he is going to be able to keep doing it. I'm sure I didn't get this quite right, so please step in and correct me :) Marco </blockquote><div> You are pretty much right. I would add one point: that currently, the main flaws in develop are all, really, flaws in glucose (and/or fructose, see below): * Cannot open an activity bundle from standard journal, only run it. (patch exists) * Cannot have two versions of an activity bundle installed at once (dev and stable) while debugging - esp. necessary for working on Develop itself. Also, you are forced to churn the <a href="http://activity.info">activity.info</a> version number (upwards or downwards, it doesn't matter) every debug cycle, because "same version" silently fails to install. * Activity bundle format is not well-enforced (no warnings), so many activities have noncompliant bundles; this can lead to data loss in Develop. (this is what I meant by including fructose above) * Datastore is unreliable. This led to a major dataloss bug in the past which "magically fixed itself", and to a separate minor one in the present (sometimes, save fails non-silently; activity complains, gives choice of halting exit, and later saves properly) which has not been resolved. Without a reimplemented datastore, a la tomeu's quickie, this does not lend confidence. These are really the only high-priority outstanding issues with develop as it stands (aside from translation and broader testing). And the process of code review does not appear to be working for me, I have a patch for the first of these issues which has languished for months. From where I'm sitting, it would be nice if checkin capability on joyride were more liberally granted (with some specific community norms about self-review), and the strict third-party review requirement were a filter when cherrypicking changes FROM joyride, not into it. As to whether I will be able to continue: hopefully, this will be resolved within a couple of weeks. Jameson </div></div>