[Box Backup-dev] Reviewing code

[Chris Wilson]

Hi Charles,

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Charles Lecklider wrote:

> 1) Understanding what bit does what. Probably slightly lower than a lot 
>    of other bits of software in that the design seems sensible, and 
>    mostly the comments are helpful.

I'd be happy to comment to the best of my ability on any questions you 
raise about any part of the code.

> 2) Source control.
>
> a) I want to work on the Win32 version. I've never managed to get trunk
> to compile, and people's personal branches are, well, personal. There's
> no "Win32-stable" branch I can see, so while I could create my own and
> do some work, merging that back in would be no fun at all (as I'm sure
> Chris will agree by the time his changes are done).

You're welcome to start from my branch, and either send me patches, or 
make a copy and commit to it and I'll review the changes for inclusion in 
my branch.

> b) TortoiseSVN is probably the least reliable bit of software I've used 
> for many years. I've just abandoned SVN on another project because 
> adding a file has about a 50/50 chance of trashing the local repository. 
> This pretty much rules out me creating my own branch.

The svn command-line tools are pretty much guaranteed not to break your 
working copy, and they do run on Win32. If you want a graphical interface 
and don't mind a 20+MB download, try Eclipse + Subclipse. Otherwise, 
use whatever source control floats your boat, as long as it enables you to 
send patches to me or to the list.

> 3) Compiling Box. It's obviously OK on the unix side, but if trunk is 
>    anything to go by the Win32 side leaves a lot to be desired.

I hope you will find that 0.10 release, trunk and chris/general all 
compile on Windows without Cygwin. If not, please let us know (although 
0.10 is now frozen and will not be changed).

> b) Not using VC2k5. Again, I think MinGW is trying to do 
> unix-on-Windows.

Not exactly. gcc-on-Windows is not Unix-on-Windows. And I have no 
objections to you building releases with VS2k5, or Borland, or any other 
compiler that you choose. I do invest considerable time in making sure 
that my tree builds with VS2K5, and I'm very happy to accept patches and 
suggestions and to help users who have problems with it, to the best of my 
ability.

> I can't live with any of (3). It's probably a good idea if Box continues 
> to be compilable with MinGW, but VC2k5 is what the Windows world uses. I 
> noticed some discussion about the licensing of the Express version not 
> allowing you to release a binary, but that's hardly an excuse not to use 
> it for development; all it takes is someone (e.g. me) with a full 
> version that's willing to produce release binaries.

And you are welcome to do so. My binary builds are not blessed or special 
in any way, and I have no objection at all if you or anyone else wants to 
make binary builds with any other compiler and release them to the world. 
The fact that I personally use MinGW for distributable binary builds 
should not stop anyone from using any other compiler.

The only thing that I will not be happy with is any attempt to stop me 
from using MinGW or to remove MinGW compatibility from Box. I absolutely 
require MinGW for Boxi, and if it's not allowed, then I will have to 
abandon work on Boxi, and therefore probably on Box Backup.

Cheers, Chris.
-- 
_ ___ __     _
  / __/ / ,__(_)_  | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK |
/ (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer |
\ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software |