Kees Cook wrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 05:03:38AM -0600, Derek P. Moore wrote:
You brought up the issue of the dialogs in the Gtkmm code. That actually helps to illustrate my point. There's almost no way to migrate the new dialogs and dialog manager down into the legacy codebase. We could certainly put that work in some subdirectory of the main tree, and have configure/compile options to use the new stuff instead of the old. But within that single tree, we'd then have two dialogs for everything until the old dialogs were entirely ripped out and the compile options for the old stuff were removed. So developers would still have the problem of having to edit two separate dialogs in two separate locations just to uniformly add a checkbox to "Align and Distribute".
As mental said, having the files near eachother helps reduce divergance. It's doesn't solve it, but I'd say it's better than two separate trees.
As far as deep changes, I think that's okay and good. One deep change at a time is better than many deep changes at once. (Although I still haven't done the giant white-space replacement I had threatened to do so long ago...) :)
Keep in mind that in the last year, we went through two catharses already:
C++ -ification Pango -ification
Now that we have developed some scar tissue, Gtkmm-ification all at once would definitely be a survivable battle. IMHO, I think that if the cvs HEAD didn't work for a few weeks while we converted, it would be OK. And it would be incentive for all of us to contribute, to get it done as soon as possible.
Bob