From: TWibberley@aol.com
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 08:12:10 EDT

Re: Out of the chaos

In a message dated 12/07/98 08:02:19 GMT, Jon wrote:

<< On Fri, 10 Jul 1998, MenTaLguY wrote:
 
 * Everyone currently has to download the whole huge Degas tree even if
 they only want to work on one subsection, an inefficient and bothersome
 process.  I have no interest in GGI Console and precious little interest
 in LibGGI (nothing wrong with either of course, but I am working on KGI),
 and yet I have to download the complete source base for both projects
 anyway!  So does Frank.  I was getting a lot more work done on KGI/kgicon
 when I did not have to worry about issues of Makefile integration, clashes
 with the old KGI, etc |-<.

Yeah, I don't like this either :(
 
 * The unified directory structure enormously magnifies the problems that
 result from CVS's inability to remove directories without losing all the
 revision control info.  The current directory mess will require this step
 to resolve, but LibGGI is essentially OK, and yet it too will have to lose
 all its RC history!

IMHO, they should all be in separate trees.
 
 * The complexity of the whole makefile/config system must reflect the 
 needs of the most complex parts of the whole tree.
 
 * Each of the three projects is in a different state of completion, too -
 LibGGI is getting close to release-quality, but KGI still needs some work
 and by Jason's own admission, GGI Console will not be ready for prime time
 for a while yet.  And yet we say that all these projects are all of the 
 same version???

I think that we should have one version - degas - that is for development (I
consider both devel and stable trees to be development versions). When a part
of GGI in the stable tree is ready for public release, a snapshot can be
renamed as public release N/
 
 * Now we are proposing to bring into this mix *another* completely
 disjoint project, KII?  A project that has nothing at all to do with
 graphics?  Why?  What purpose can this serve?

Definately keep it out of the same CVS tree (as well as separate the other
parts). (Isn't KII just going to be another name for EvStacks?).
 
 * Documenation for all three projects is lumped together in one directory,
 and the policy of keeping half a dozen file formats there means that the 
 amount of unneeded documentation grows geometrically.

This is wrong. Keep the docs separate.
 
 * Last but not least, our message is being diluted.  The answer to the
 question "What is GGI" has become WAY too complicated.  What does "GGI" 
 really mean anymore, anyway?  All the commonality I see lies with the
 developer community (but not all of it) and our history (which IMHO should
 have nothing to do with code or project organization).  But there are many
 other open source projects that share a developer base and aren't joined
 at the hip like KGI, GGI Console and LibGGI are.  A project should be
 defined solely in terms of its source base and goals, not its developer
 base or its history.

Right. Separate the source and docs, keep them running along together under
developments (by continuing to privately call them degas) though.
 
 ----
 
 	Can someone give me even ONE reason why we should continue this
 way?
 
 > A (small) global FAQ and a few other things wouldn't hurt, either. 
 
 	Global?  *What* global?

The projects currently under the title 'The GGI-Project' all follow a similar
design principle, and have similar goals. This stuff should be described once
because it is the same for all the sub projects.

Similarly, all IMHO.

--
Tristan