6 Jan
2005
6 Jan
'05
11:41 a.m.
Dave Phillips:
The sources are to different. Ceres3 only supports mono-files and is
very non-thread-safe.
There are two options, either implement the missing features in ceres
to ceres3, or the missing features in ceres3 to ceres1.
Both are quite much work, but I think the last one is the least.
I'm
thinking about renaming Ceres as Ceres4, because Ceres3 sounds
newer and better than Ceres. But if I did, Ceres4 would sounds newer
and better than Ceres3 again, which might not be true either.
(Well, to be hounest, I sometimes think Ceres3 should be named something
non-ceres though. It is a bit confusing.)
As you know, Ceres has had a few hands working on it. I ported the first
Linux version back in 1997 or so, and many developers have added
features to various versions since that time. What we need is a
SuperCeres that incorporates all those features into a single version.
I'm not sure why Stanko should change the name of
Ceres3. His work
predates your own, and his naming convention simply followed the
succession starting from the original Ceres (Oyvind Hammer), Ceres2
(Jonathon Lee), and Ceres2w (WAV support added).
Øyvind Hammer has been working on Ceres in all years, the latest version
(0.15) was released in 2001 if I remember correctly, before I took over.
Even then, it compaired fairly to ceres3. So he never
stopped the development of ceres, still other people released both
ceres2, ceres2w and ceres3. I don't know why, perhaps they had good
reasons.
A superceres would be nice, but the fork happened for a very very long
time ago, and an integration is not an easy task.
--