"Nathan Whitehorn" <nathan.whitehorn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If the cruft is in the API (as it often is) or in anything necessary > to > maintain binary compatibility, it will necessarily continue to be a > part of R1. Further, most of the cruft that is in R5 (as far as I can > tell) is still there only for compatibility reasons. If we duplicate > compatibility, we therefore duplicate cruft. At least for MDR, this is true, but we want to achieve binary compatibility, and that can't be done the way you propose. > > And getting consensus is the hardest thing which was why R5 was a > > good > > starting point. > So you have a consensus to do something essentlially pointless... If you don't get it, well, I can't help you. > You *can* run ideas, once they have been coded. Or you can skip the > ideas, and just code mindlessly. Hmm?? > Just to make things clear, I *am* a developer. What I'm arguing > against > is the lack of foresight of the OpenBeOS project. Well, from my POV, you are lacking of foresight, and that's why you want to go another route :-)) OTOH how would you like to design something from scratch in a project as big as OpenBeOS? Should everyone get a word? Should everyone have to come up with a reference implementation to be taken serious? Having a fixed feature set including a reference implementation (R5) is a gift, and one that shouldn't be overseen so easily. Adios... Axel.