Re: [fluid-dev] FS2.0 proposal

[Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas]

Bernat Arlandis i Mañó wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Sorry for the long wait but I'm a bit busy lately. This is how it's
> gonna be since this is something I have to do on my spare time so there
> will be ups and lows inevitably, but I'm firmly decide to get there with
> your help.

I can understand you. I am currently maintaining 5 things at SourceForge 
without the help from other contributors, and also contributing to some other 
projects, FluidSynth and QSynth among them. All my work for free software is 
done in my spare time, after 8 hours a day earning a life in a real job. 

So I need a really good and compelling motivation to spend more time on new 
projects.

> I've been thinking a bit on what I'd like to do for FS2.0 and would be
> interesting to do. My goal is having a better code base to work on
> building new features and improving performance and compatibility
> without the problems we have right now.

Please, can you elaborate what are those problems, and the goals that we can't 
fullfill without the big overhaul you are proposing?

[...]
>
> So, this is a list of tasks without strict order:
>
>  - Define API for every component.

I think that I agree with Josh here. Can you please explain why the current 
API is so badly designed, broken or ugly to require a complete redesign from 
scratch?

>  - Replace code with external libraries where possible.

I can agree with using Glib, instead of borrowing entire components as for 
instance fluid_list, but external dependencies should be carefully justified 
and limited to the strictly necessary.

>  - Refactor code.
>  - Implement missing API functions.
>  - Implement checks and result codes on every API function.
>  - Document the new API.
>  - Helping applications developers upgrade to the new API.
>
> This is much work, and we're a just few developers with not much time. I
> won't mind working alone, but there's some subjects where I'd truly need
> your help:
>
>  - Autotools/automake/libtool maintenance and support.

Why not to leave the autohell, and go to something better like CMake? I have 
some experience converting projects to CMake. 

What do you think about adding CMake to trunk? (without removing the auto.*)

>  - Platform building and testing (including drivers).

I can also offer my help in Linux and Windows, and my little experience in Mac 
OSX.

Anyway, I would like to ask what do you think about a new stable release 1.0.9 
from trunk, soon. I really like all the new drivers, and also interesting 
bugfixes. I would like to be able to fix tickets #22 and #23 first. I think 
that #23 would be not exactly the same as #10, but only a limited workaround.

Regards,
Pedro