MicroBlocks
 Guru
 Joined: 12/05/2012 Location: ThailandPosts: 2209 |
Posted: 03:06am 20 Feb 2015 |
Copy link to clipboard |
 Print this post |
|
It was a suggestion, nothing else.
GITHUB is just an online version of git. Does not really matter what kind of version control is used either. svn,mercurial,source safe (brrr), i have used them all. It beats the hell out of managing everything manually.
In my 'world' beta testing and fixing a bug is looking at code and try to find why. I understand that is not everyone's way of doing things, and i would not push my way of working to someone else because what works for me does not have to work for another.
Edited by TZAdvantage 2015-02-21 Microblocks. Build with logic. |
Grogster
 Admin Group
 Joined: 31/12/2012 Location: New ZealandPosts: 9610 |
Posted: 01:34pm 20 Feb 2015 |
Copy link to clipboard |
 Print this post |
|
You(or anyone else for that matter) are perfectly free to request the source, and play with it, and do what you like with it, so long as you don't group-develop it or distribute your changes to the source without Geoff's approval. Matherp's 470 is a special case, as he HAS obtained that permission from Geoff to develop the Beta, and he is essentially following the exact same method that Geoff did with the original uM. And even then, the beta-testers list is a closed list, in that if you want on, you have to request it, and other members' emails are hidden.(the list is BCC).
The problem as I see it with TRUE open-source(in that everything in the source is open for anyone to add to and resubmit or otherwise contribute to), is that it becomes an almost unmanageable beast very quickly, with everyone and their dog making changes to the source to suit themselves, then, perhaps quite understandably, thinking that everyone else would benefit from their changes, resubmit another version of the source code with their "Improvements".
Before you know it, the source has morphed into some kind of hybrid beast that represents something of the original, with a whole heap of other stuff added, and it turns into a nightmare to maintain and/or bug-fix by the original author(s)(as great big chunks of the source are written by others, and we all have our own somewhat unique-ish way of developing code).
I have been involved in true open-source development, and I hated it so much, I would never do it again. The main problem seems to be different people have different needs, so some will want some feature, others will not. Even when everyone thinks a certain feature is a good idea, you then get several different opinions on how people think that feature should be implemented or coded, and you end up with disagreements over what seem like trivial aspects of the code.
My 2c, anyway - make of it what you will.
I write all this to hopefully illustrate to EVERYONE, the pros and cons of true open-source. This is why I adore the kind of license that Geoff has, and I do think this is the best way forward, as it keeps tight control of the distributed source, while generally still keeping it completely free, and available for people to alter for their own PERSONAL needs.
Now, I know this post will already be causing the true open-source advocates to sizzle with irritation, and some will want to write some lengthy response to this debunking all I have just said. That is their right, but PLEASE understand, that I don't want a flame-war, and won't feed the fire if anything starts.
It takes all sorts to make a world, and that includes sometimes quite drastically differing opinions on just exactly how things should be done.
What all this boils down to, is that Geoff's chosen license is what it is - that is his right as the author, and so let's get on with living life, instead of wasting it trying to force the issue of weather the code should be fully open for everyone to "Improve" or not.
Peace to all.
PS: This post has tuned into a bit of a rant - sorry.... Smoke makes things work. When the smoke gets out, it stops! |