Re: IMO

[Markwayne <markwayne-at-mindspring.com>]

An amen from the back pew.

No better way a new crew of developers can get up to speed on unfamiliar 
code than a bugfix/cleanup/documentation spree. Will the fork have a new 
name?

Mark (a possible addition to the team) wayne

Paul wrote:
> 
> Hi Ray
> 
> Slowly catching up on all the emails... I'm all for forking the CVS sources 
> to support HAL. Whilst we are at it, I also favor a complete overhaul of the 
> code from the ground up to fix many of the perceived problems. e.g. The 
> multitude of #ifdefs, assorted cryptic /* fix me */ comments, convoluted 
> function calls, etc, etc. Reducing the amount of redundant or duplicated data 
> stored in the emcmot struct and using common variable names across the 
> realtime/user space would be another recommendation.
> I would also favor adherence to the FHS standards as per 
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs/ or
> http://www.redhat.com/mirrors/LDP/LDP/fhs/fhs6.pdf.
> 
> Regards, Paul.
> 
> 
> On Thursday 08 May 2003 4:08 pm, Ray Henry wrote:
> 
>>2 - Fork the sourceforge CVS to allow for HAL
> 
> 
>>I believe that the move to abstraction layers will produce a much stronger,
>>more flexible EMC.  I also believe that, for a while with this effort, near
>>chaos will be our primary product.  I am really excited about the changes
>>that we will make but before we have finished it we will have rethought
>>everything that we do now.
> 
>