| # | User | Message | Date |
| 76 | BrianH | There is nothing about the DevBase protocol that requires a text-mode client; all of that stuff is client-side. The only reason we have a text-mode client is so you don't need a GUI to participate, but there's no reason why someone can't make a GUI if they want to. | 18-Apr-10 20:18 |
| 75 | BrianH | Yes. But access to the messages and files in DevBase is the critical priority, otherwise people won't have the tools to participate in the development of R2 (unless they use R3). Making a GUI is a good idea, and the DevBase protocol for R2 clients should be structured so that it can be easily used by other clients, such as GUIs or scripting interfaces. But the priority has to be enabling people to participate in the development process - we need too much help. | 18-Apr-10 20:14 |
| 74 | Gregg | I'm very late checking in here but, before porting CHAT to R2, what about asking if people will use it? If it allows us to work agains the same back end data, docs, etc. for both R2 and R3, then I'm all for it. At least if we have a better chance of getting something more than a console client built for it. I disagree with Brian about AltME. The GUI is far from irrelevant and, while not perfect, it's far from "a terrible platform..." IMO. Do I want more from it? Yes. If someone knows how R3 chat works, it should be possible, perhaps even easy, to write a GUI over it, yes? | 31-Jan-10 21:40 |
| 73 | Gabriele | is it intentional that [child] messages do not awake the system port on Linux? I think I remember this was working fine back in the days of the detective... | 9-Jan-10 15:17 |
| 72 | Carl | Checking in here. Need to review above msgs. Website revs taking a lot of my time. | 7-Jan-10 17:48 |
| 71 | Gabriele | if you know a way to check that in mezz code... | 7-Jan-10 10:30 |
| 70 | BrianH | That sounds like a great idea. Does it need to be native? | 6-Jan-10 19:24 |
| 69 | Gabriele | would it be possible to get a OPEN? function in 2.7.8? (true if the port is open, false otherwise) | 6-Jan-10 15:36 |
| 68 | BrianH | And for flame wars - AltME is great for those. | 5-Jan-10 22:00 |
| 67 | BrianH | The GUI of AltME is irrelevant - all that matters for our purposes is its communication model, and that is of a group IM with messages that can't be edited, deleted or otherwise managed, and thus their persisting is more than a little creepy. Plus you can't have a private conversation on topic. It's a terrible platform to have long-term development discussions in - it's only good for IRC-style IM momentary discussions. | 5-Jan-10 21:58 |
| 66 | BrianH | Let the people who contribute choose how much effort they need to put in. A lot of them need things fixed for their work. | 5-Jan-10 21:52 |
| 65 | BrianH | Development of R2 will be handled in DevBase. Some discussions can be held in the REBOL3 AltME world, which has a !REBOL2 group for just that purpose, or in private groups, as long as we don't need those discussions to persist (think IM). The discussions for the record will be in DevBase along with the code. | 5-Jan-10 21:51 |
| 64 | BrianH | We don't want people who refuse to use R3 (for whatever reason) to be blocked from R2 development. And that means DevBase, which CHAT calls a client of that is stored online. | 5-Jan-10 21:46 |
| 63 | BrianH | As for the effort of porting chat to R2: - It shouldn't be that hard, it's just the text client. If someone wants a GUI client for chat, let them write it. - It's not as much effort as supporting multiple development models. Retiring this world and RAMBO is its own reward. - It gets people involved in the development process that matters most to the REBOL community. - It's not your effort, it's mine. And it doesn't affect my priorities. | 5-Jan-10 21:43 |
| 62 | BrianH | It's not a new product, it's the old product with some addons and fixes. We're being very strict about backwards compatibility. | 5-Jan-10 21:37 |
| 61 | Pekr | Brian - I have a bad feeling, like we try to make R2 completly new product, and it surealy is BAD. I know some ppl might not agree with me, but we should not put much of energy into R2 updates imo. We have very limited user-base, and we will need it for R3, to get to new platforms, etc. Don't get me wrong - but what is the point in porting R3 Chat to R2? That is imo absolutly NOT necessary. Also - we should not retiry any AltME world, unless R3 Chat gets GUI client! Wouldn't your effort of getting R3 Chat to work in R2, be better spent on R3 Schemes? We have only R3 http implementation, not fully finished, and some ppl even don't like the way it is implemented in. Getting Chat to R2 is waste of time for me, even if it will serve as a repository. Those who want, can access it via R3, period. For the rest, R2 new releases will be linked from the rebol.com website, easy as that ... | 5-Jan-10 8:06 |
| 60 | Graham | man ?? | 3-Jan-10 23:25 |
| 59 | Graham | the above link comes from | 3-Jan-10 23:25 |
| 58 | Graham | This is my attempt to link to the wiki docs http://rebol.wik.is/Man | 3-Jan-10 23:25 |
| 57 | Graham | WIKI: http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions/z-q-q.html | 3-Jan-10 23:24 |
| 56 | Graham | going out to walk my dog ... l8r. | 3-Jan-10 20:56 |
| 55 | BrianH | Or you can, if you like. | 3-Jan-10 20:55 |
| 54 | BrianH | I'll post a CureCode ticket to explain the fix. | 3-Jan-10 20:55 |
| 53 | BrianH | It will make it into the next R3 release. | 3-Jan-10 20:52 |
| 52 | BrianH | Done: Fix posted in #6625. | 3-Jan-10 20:52 |
| 51 | Graham | all of them using < or > are reversed | 3-Jan-10 20:51 |
| 50 | BrianH | ">" is broken too - I found the relevant two lines in HELP source. I'll post a fix. | 3-Jan-10 20:48 |
| 49 | Graham | With that fixed .. it should all be easy to write | 3-Jan-10 20:41 |
| 48 | BrianH | Ooo, good one. We should fix that. | 3-Jan-10 20:39 |
| 47 | Graham | that link is of "<" so it should really be http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions/z-lt.html | 3-Jan-10 20:39 |
| 46 | Graham | http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions/z-gt.html He's mixed up lt and gt | 3-Jan-10 20:38 |
| 45 | BrianH | We can just regenerate it for R2, or just copy the initial version over to a new directory. | 3-Jan-10 20:38 |
| 44 | Graham | there's a bug .... | 3-Jan-10 20:38 |
| 43 | BrianH | That is the manual I was talking about above. Carl generated the initial version from the Core 2.3 manual. It hasn't been fully updated for R3 yet, but updating it for more recent R2 versions should be easier. | 3-Jan-10 20:37 |
| 42 | BrianH | Obviously the r3 in the urls would be changed to r2 for the R2 version :) | 3-Jan-10 20:35 |
| 41 | Graham | q is ? z is for non alpha and divided into datatypes and functions | 3-Jan-10 20:34 |
| 40 | Graham | http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions/task-q.html
http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions/z-div-div.html
http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/datatypes/rebcode.html ok, seems to be a logical naming order | 3-Jan-10 20:33 |
| 39 | BrianH | We should be able to make test releases with the SDK and encap. Otherwise, we can test with loading mezzanine code - that is how R2/Forward is tested. | 3-Jan-10 20:28 |
| 38 | Graham | This must be really easy to do .. if the wiki is logically organized | 3-Jan-10 20:27 |
| 37 | BrianH | R3 already has something like that. It's on the todo list for R2. | 3-Jan-10 20:26 |
| 36 | Graham | like a man | 3-Jan-10 20:26 |
| 35 | Graham | I'd like to see a function that is like help .. but it gives the url to a wiki page with full examples of working code | 3-Jan-10 20:26 |
| 34 | BrianH | Stable releases are on the first of the month, every month. If a feature isn't stable yet, it doesn't make it in. Triage. | 3-Jan-10 20:25 |
| 33 | BrianH | The policy for adding new globally defined functions is to add them to R3 first, wait for their behavior to stabilize there and consensus, and then backport them. New functions are for forwards compatibility with R3. | 3-Jan-10 20:24 |
| 32 | Graham | are we going to have a notion of stable and beta releases ? | 3-Jan-10 20:24 |
| 31 | BrianH | We just have a month, so some things will inevitably be pushed to 2.7.9 next month. The amount of work that we can get done depends on the effort we can put in. Pick what matters to you most and work on it. If we can't get it done in a given release, there's always next month :) | 3-Jan-10 20:22 |
| 30 | Graham | Whew ... | 3-Jan-10 20:20 |
| 29 | BrianH | By me, probably. It's my priority, after all :) | 3-Jan-10 20:20 |
| 28 | Graham | By whom ? | 3-Jan-10 20:19 |
| 27 | BrianH | Possibly, with some limitations that I haven't completely thought through yet. It needs to be done, so it will be done. | 3-Jan-10 20:19 |
| 26 | Graham | So, are you saying that we can now build a chat client in R2 because of the new R2/forward stuff? | 3-Jan-10 20:18 |
| 25 | BrianH | It's not my top priority for this release though - that is listed above. | 3-Jan-10 20:16 |
| 24 | Graham | Gabriele mentioned the possibility of rewriting http using the code he used for R3 ... | 3-Jan-10 20:16 |
| 23 | Graham | Sure | 3-Jan-10 20:15 |
| 22 | BrianH | It just means going through the docs/rfcs. The ftps protocol is just FTP over SSL - sftp is FTP over SSH. | 3-Jan-10 20:15 |
| 21 | Graham | ( but not as a sftp server ) | 3-Jan-10 20:15 |
| 20 | Graham | Filezilla can act as a ftps:// server ... | 3-Jan-10 20:14 |
| 19 | BrianH | Hopefully a patch will be all it takes. | 3-Jan-10 20:14 |
| 18 | Graham | ftps:// might be a lot of work ... | 3-Jan-10 20:13 |
| 17 | Graham | I just patched the existing http protocol | 3-Jan-10 20:13 |
| 16 | BrianH | Yes, we should look ar SSL support in the other protocols that can use it in theory. That includes ftps:// | 3-Jan-10 20:12 |
| 15 | Graham | and Imap .. someone might be using that ... needs to be made secure as well | 3-Jan-10 20:12 |
| 14 | BrianH | HTTP 1.1 | 3-Jan-10 20:12 |
| 13 | Graham | 1.1 code? | 3-Jan-10 20:12 |
| 12 | BrianH | Do you have 1.1 code, perhaps with the chunked encoding? If not, no worries. | 3-Jan-10 20:11 |
| 11 | Graham | POP and SMTP need to support SSL in one single protocol ... ? | 3-Jan-10 20:10 |
| 10 | BrianH | Definitely. | 3-Jan-10 20:10 |
| 9 | Graham | So that we have a complete HTTP implementation | 3-Jan-10 20:09 |
| 8 | Graham | should add support for a http delete | 3-Jan-10 20:09 |
| 7 | BrianH | If we do this release right, this should be the last R2 release that uses this world for anything other than legacy documentation. | 3-Jan-10 20:08 |
| 6 | BrianH | (Copied from the REBOL3 world !REBOL2 group for posterity) | 3-Jan-10 19:58 |
| 5 | BrianH | OK, now that we have 2.7.7 released (even though there is more work to do, i.e. platforms and the SDK), it is time to look ahead to 2.7.8 - which is scheduled for release in one month on February 1. The primary goal of this release is to migrate to REBOL's new development infrastructure. This means:
- Migrating the RAMBO database to a new CureCode project and retiring RAMBO.
- Using Carl's generation code for the manual to regenerate the R2 manual, so we can start to get to work updating it.
- Porting the chat client to R2 using the new functions and building a CHAT function into R2 similar to the R3 version. The R2 chat client might be limited to the ASCII character set, though support for the Latin-1 character set might be possible. Still text mode for now, though if anyone wants to write a GUI client (Henrik?) we can put it on the official RT reb site accessible from the View desktop. The server is accessed through a simple RPC protocol and is designed to be easily scriptable. It turns out that Carl already rewrote the installer for 2.7.something, but it was turned off because of a couple minor bugs that we were able to fix in 2.7.7. With any luck, only minor fixes to the registry usage will be needed and we'll be good to go. As for the rest, it's up to you. Graham seems to have a good tweak to the http protocol ( http://rebol.wik.is/Protocols/Http ), and others may want to contribute their fixes. | 3-Jan-10 19:57 |
| 4 | BrianH | Ah, cool. | 3-Jan-10 19:50 |
| 3 | Graham | Yes, it should http://www.rebol.com/docs/ssl.html | 3-Jan-10 19:46 |
| 2 | BrianH | As a scheme name, no. Should it? | 3-Jan-10 19:21 |
| 1 | Graham | Is tls:// actually working in 2.7.7 ? | 3-Jan-10 7:34 |