FourthWorld wrote:it really is time to put some plan together for community involvement in moving the IDE forward.
At the end of the day there's no point in RunRev doing some half hearted effort here. They need to want IDE contributions and be prepared to put some resources towards it as they have done with the engine. It really doesn't appear to be on their radar at the moment and nobody from the IDE team has discussed the use of lcVCS with me.
malte wrote:Monte: What is the state of lcVCS? I need to get an OSS lc project into github or something similar, so I am most interested to learn as much as I can.
I've been working closely with Trevor on it and it seems it's pretty much at a point where people can work in parallel. Lately I've shifted my focus from the core lcVCS engine to GIT/IDE integration based on lcVCS repos. The IDE integration and CLI for lcVCS may end up being commercial but it would be possible for someone to just use the GPL lcVCS plugin to work with a repo that others were using the commercial extras with. While the goals of the project include making FOSS efforts possible the reality is I've put bucket loads to hours into trying to get this thing right and and I need to monetize on that somehow. So I'm leaning towards a model where the core is FOSS and there's pro workflow extras at a cost.
You might like to start with AE as Trevor and I already have that as a substack of clarify and I've never seen any issues with it.
Blame toolTips on the line numbers:
Log/Diff/Revert/Commit + the file status and branch in the top right of the SE