lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

David Manura kirjoitti 15.1.2009 kello 8:00:

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Asko Kauppi wrote:
...In order to get to proper use of LuaRocks, we must
first manage "who's doing what" on the coding/design side of modules.....
      + gather people into "clans" interested in a certain binding

I myself would be willing to offer time to testing and
development of: Cairo, SDL, D-BUS. If I know I'm not alone
in the project, and I know that it's "the" version that's going
to be used by all.

What form would the "gathering" take?  Conventionally, one creates a
project page and a mail list, and people join the mail list.  It takes
time, however, to set up this infrastructure.  Preexisting
infrastructure like LuaForge/SourceForge/github lowers the barrier
(sites of more general audience than LuaForge have greater admin
resources, such as concerning git support).  Wiki pages can be set up
instantaneously.  These gatherings tend to be centered around a
specific implementation (e.g. bitlib or Metalua), possibly with only a
few posts, rather than a general goal ("bitwise operator support" and
"metaprogramming" interest groups) that can have multiple
implementations and many people sharing ideas.

The perfect beginning would be to clanify existing individual authors, and then arrange for a common infrastructure for them to work together.

I would emphasize subversion as a common control/handling tool. When LuaForge starts hosting that, it'll be fine. Currently, anyone with a server could offer an svn "home" for the project. (cvs simply sucks, git could be fine but I fail to see the advantage to svn here)

Then, it'll be time to either merge code bases or (rather?) redo the Whole Damn Thing as short and efficiently we can. Here, tolua would be my recommendation.

Realistically, it might be easier to Just Do these two things myself (let's consider Cairo bindings as a sample case), instead of trying to form concensus among the existing authors, essentially arguing that they would be better off abandoning their (partially) working solutions. If all Cairo binding authors jump on this discussion thread and say "I'm in", that proves me wrong.

What I try to say is that it's foremost a social thing (just as creating the Linux kernel has been). But I do argue that lighting the one fire would serve everyone better than having multiple smaller flames. At least with regard to Cairo, there's simply no good enough module out there.