lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

LYNX-DEV Looking ahead. WAS [ One post, many things. ]


From: Subir Grewal
Subject: LYNX-DEV Looking ahead. WAS [ One post, many things. ]
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 20:19:57 -0800 (PST)

On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Foteos Macrides wrote:

:       I don't want to leave you high and dry, Subir, but we can't
:stick our head in the sand about what has happened this week.  My
:simple offer to "officialize" the FM code set as a v2.7 so that people
:at sites which require some kind of "officialness" could benefit from
:the bug fixes and enhancements of the past four months has escalated
:far beyond anything I offered, and no mechanism is in place for putting
:out a v2.7 release in that manner.   To use Al's own words, unless
:people "get real" about the current situation for Lynx development,
:there's no point talking about binaries.  First figure out how/if
:these expectations can be met, at all.

Fote,

I think I understand some of the issues, but most of the ones I see seem
quite minor to me.  Most of the immediate friction seems to center around
the Lynx documentation, to be frank I have absolutely no problem with the
Lynx documentation as it is now.  I find the style it has been written in
both lucid and instructive, but that's just me.  I don't know whether we
can ever have a universally ideal documentation, as is evidenced here
there are many ideals that need to be reconciled.  I really don't know
what we should do about this aspect, the solution in Lynx2-6FM seemed
quite reasonable to me, a link to the blynx documentation from the main
help page.  I don't think two entirely separate sets of help docs are
doable (I'm not sure anyone other than yourself has, at this point, the
ability to write comprehensive documentation on Lynx's behaviour).  I
personally find the one link to a line rule sort of restrictive, and have
failed to adhere to it on my own pages/work.

The larger issue, it seems to me, surrounds the actual Lynx code.  I don't
think we saw exactly the sort of effort emerge post 2.6 (and your short
lived vacation) as some of us might have hoped.  I don't think we have to
blame anyone for that.  We all have other responsibilities which we juggle
with this project, and I think most of us respect everybody else's
priorities.  We have begun to take you and your knowledge for granted
though, Fote.  Not that this is anything new, we've all had a tendency to
run to you for help since you've always been so forthcoming.  I don't know
what sort of environment you would like for this project, I get the
feeling you might be more comfortable as one among peers, rather than the
person who knows (or seems to know) it all.  I don't know to what extent
we can hope that will happen here.  I'm not familiar with other efforts
like this one, and perhaps we can if we wish go seek some feedback from
the Apache, Majordomo or Linux people.  Try to see what sort of
environment they're working in and how they handle situations like this.

Then there's the possibility that you may have had enough of Lynx.  You've
hinted this may be true in the past, and I think part of your vacation
was an attempt to have a few more people actively involved in the porject
so you might be able to move into the shadows.  Though it's difficult for
me to imagine this project without yourself, I think we must both respect
your wishes and have faith in everyone else who has been actively involved
in Lynx development over the past few years.  In the longer term I think
Lynx will manage, it has sufficient visibility to attract people to its
development I think (and that is greatly to your credit).  If the plans
for a completely overhauled Lynx, with the new libwww and style sheets
come through, then we may even be able to move on to 3.0 and beyond within
your absence.  And really, what more can we do but give thanks for what
has been, which has been exceedingly good, and wish you the best.

As for the 2.7 release, I don't think it has everything to do with sites
that want a semblance of officialness.  I think it gives Lynx some
grounding as well, something other than a moving target to aim at, and I
think we'll be able to regroup after 2.7 has been put to bed.  I'm aware
of your concern as to how we would co-ordinate a release and your
hesitance , but I believe we've managed reasonably well in the past, and
with the FM code of Jan 29 we have something that might not need any
further work at all (I haven't had any problems with it and I haven't seen
a bug report).  I'm interested in doing things a little bit better this
time around because I anticipate this being the last release for a while
as major changes are made to Lynx so we can go on to 3.0. That's really
all there is to it, doing things a little better, and if it makes Lynx
2.7 seem like a real "version", then so be it.  I certainly think it is,
definitely as much as emacs 19.26 is.  All we really need (since the
product itself is ready) is some planning as to distribution (which we've
done adequately in the past), some packaging (the binary distribution) and
some publicity (posting a message to the comp.infosystems.www.* groups has
worked well in the past).

I think we can pull this one off together, and then move on as well. 
True, we have some serious thinking to do and lynx-dev may never be the
same again and perhaps it shouldn't be.  You've been asking for some room
to breathe in for more than a year now and I really don't know what your
plans are now, but either wayI'm hopeful about the future. And even if
you're not here, it'll always be a comfort to know that you are out there
somewhere Fote, working on something good. 

PS everyone.  If I'm making it too easy for him to leave, please people
let me know ;~) 

address@hidden  +  Lynx 2.6  +  PGP  +  http://www.crl.com/~subir/
The [Ford Foundation] is a large body of money completely surrounded by
people who want some.
                -- Dwight MacDonald


;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]