Re: igc: trying to chase a crash

[Andrea Corallo]

Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:

> Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>>>> I get the same feeling. Something is a bit odd.
>>>>
>>>> I don't find this too odd, I have my own ideas about the reasons for
>>>> this difference.
>>>
>>> Care to share your thoughts?
>>
>> Sure if it's of interest: my idea of few things that helped a lot native
>> comp in gaining traction at time:
>>
>> - publishing simple blog posts summarizing and explaining the progresses
>>   of the branch [1]
>>
>> - native-comp being a feature branch, this clarified that the goal was
>>   merging to master (IOW something which was probably likely to happen)
>>   and that the branch was trackable by users.  That's why I suggested
>>   more than once this solution in the past.
>>
>> - publishing some positive performance numbers in order to explain/prove
>>   the soundness of the approach.
>>
>> That said, users were very interested and gave a lot of good feedbacks
>> and bug reports (my impression more than for igc), but the number of
>> developers involved I'm pretty sure was not higher than what igc got
>> already.
>
> Yes, thanks, that's interesting, for me at least, because I wasn't there
> at the time.
>
> So, you did a ton of work, also outside the technical aspects, to get it
> in, certainly requiring a very strong motivation and will power over a
> long time.
>
> If that's a requirement, maybe it is the reason why users are ignoring
> igc, indeed. And in that case, the question would be, if the project or
> some individual(s) could or want to do something similar. Which I can't
> answer. I won't do it, though, which I think I said already too often.
> And, from my POV, no one can be blamed for not having that stamina.

Absolutely, still I think few things are probably really low cost (the
feature branch comes to my mind).

  Andrea