update2 - READ ME!

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Mar 7 08:39:12 PST 2006


George Makrydakis wrote:
> I really wish to work with you in any case. I just believe that the 
> parser should be worked upon as a standalone first, and then port 
> whatever the nALFS project has into it for building the regular binary. 
> Right now you got me CONFUSED... How to work on something that you 
> already have an idea of where it should head?

I really don't have a pre-conceived idea of how it should head... The 
code I have in the repository is just my attempt at parsing the book. 
I've endeavored to apply the principles you've shown in your recent bash 
work; but in any case, I'm happy to re-work the code completely as you 
provide better/more efficient code.

I agree that the parser should be standalone first, and totally 
portable. :) If you look at/run the parser.cpp I have in there now, it 
*should* be obvious that I haven't started turning the results into any 
specific format. Again, I'm not tied to that code - it's been more of an 
experiment and me getting used to C++ than anything else.

> I am practically 
> useless... I will be working on my parser structures and the concepts as 
> laid out in our discussion back then, for my "fun" part. Until a 
> "parser" is close to complete, having more programmers working on the 
> same concept can lead to pretty sore experiences; fact remains that I 
> really like this, but bear in mind that keeping the fun part out, well 
> ... What should I do, post everything on the list as it comes out?...

Well, I for one, would think it's useful to watch where you're heading, 
and the progress you make. It would be easier for me to understand and 
follow where you're going than trying to parse complete code from 
nothing. *sigh* - I don't know, I'm sorry. What I envisioned was 
discussions concerning concepts happening here, and all code being kept 
in the repository. The easiest way to manage that is to give you write 
access to the repo - but that's not my call, Thomas needs to make that 
decision. And he may just want a little time to get comfortable with you 
as a contributor.

Whatever happens, please don't stop on your work. And please do your 
best to keep the fun in it. Again, I'm sorry for being impatient or 
inflexible - that wasn't my intention. I certainly *don't* want to 
stifle development.

Does anyone else concerned with ALFS have an opinion on this? I'd be 
happy for some other opinions to balance out the perspective here.

--
JH



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list