BlackBox Framework Center

Josef Templ wrote:For me this is ready for voting.

1 - Is there a Diff that clearly shows what we are voting for?

2 - The issue description in Redmine probably should be updated in light of what has been decided - assuming the vote passes!

Robert wrote:

Josef Templ wrote:For me this is ready for voting.

1 - Is there a Diff that clearly shows what we are voting for?

http://redmine.blackboxframework.org/pr ... f87d370a2d

Robert wrote:

Josef Templ wrote:For me this is ready for voting.

1 - Is there a Diff that clearly shows what we are voting for?

2 - The issue description in Redmine probably should be updated in light of what has been decided - assuming the vote passes!

This turned out to be an update of the docu, so its simply #100.

The full diffs are her http://redmine.blackboxframework.org/pr ... f87d370a2d.

You can also download individual files from github topic branch issue-#100 via https://github.com/BlackBoxCenter/black ... 1dc88d2e87
or the latest zip of issue-#100 from http://blackboxframework.org/unstable/i ... c1.648.zip.

- Josef

Re: Issue-#100 compiler documentation

Postby Ivan Denisov » 27 Aug 2016 20:58
Before merge the branch, can somebody please update the issue description?
http://redmine.blackboxframework.org/issues/124
I tried to do this, but then realize that I can miss some details and give wrong explanation.

Josef,
Is the issue description OK or does it need modification?
-Doug

THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

In other words: This issue is nonsense.
It is already fixed by adding documentation.

- Josef

Josef Templ wrote:nonsense

do you have the basic courtesy and mutual respect with each other?
your work is work, my work is work also.
you are not my boss, I'm not your employee!
why you say this kind words again and again like a king ?
are you tring to imitate Linus Torvalds ?

You right that the issue description will not influence the changes file. I forgot that it is the issue-#100 now.
So I merged the branch. This is new version with updated documentation:
http://blackboxframework.org/unstable/m ... c1.649.zip

LuoWy, I think, that Josef did not say this to your side. However I agree with you that we should led some development ethics. And Josef also. The only person with some extra authority for the development process is Douglas now. I am also will never forget how Josef was forced us to adopt weak implementation of utf8 conversion.

About issue-#124 . I agree with LouWy, that it was not obvious that we choose this documentation way. LouWy suggested more strict solution from syntax point of view, however we decided that is is dangerous to implement it now before 1.7 release. Second argument was that we should keep this compiler feature to have more freedom of range checking. This brakes composition rules of structure programming, however it gives more control for developer. So it is not an obvious choice and #124 is not an nonsense issue.

I am attaching here the BlackBox build with LuoWy implementation of the fix. For it is not been deleted later from build server.

We need agreement between Josef, LuoWy and Ivan on the issue called #124

Code change: YES, NO
Docu change: YES, NO

-Doug

DGDanforth wrote:We need agreement between Josef, LuoWy and Ivan on the issue called #124

Lets discuss this later. Now we decided to include documentation and not change compiler.
I removed target 1.7 from this issue and switched tracker to "feature":
http://redmine.blackboxframework.org/issues/124

Changing the docu was agreed on, including luowy and Ivan.
So this issue is gone, at least for 1.7, because it is in contradiction with the docu change.

As a general remark:
My goal is to get 1.7 released but the center is not very focused on that goal.
This eats a lot of my time and I cannot continue to invest that amount of time
forever.

- Josef