[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [aspell-devel] Aspell | MySpell
From: |
Kevin Atkinson |
Subject: |
Re: [aspell-devel] Aspell | MySpell |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:16:48 -0600 (MDT) |
Hi. I am the main Aspell author.
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Jose Da Silva wrote:
> On July 18, 2005 01:35 pm, Arsen Kostenko wrote:
> > Since I am quite new to Aspell as well, I would be glad if Aspell
> > gurus helped me with advice.
>
> I'm not a guru, however, if you are looking to help Aspell and you have
> a solid chunk of devoted time in which you can do some serious amounts
> of improvements (or damage), then this is worth reading:
> http://aspell.sourceforge.net/
> On that web page, check the "Quick links" to 0.60.3, Manual, Devel Docs.
> Check out the ToDos, Things that need doing, Things I would like...
>
> In terms of the CVS, you may want to note there is a 0.60.3 branch
No such branch exists there is a 0.60.3 TAG. The branch is 0.60 and is
named "rel_0_60-branch".
> (which is public & for distribution) based on 0.60.0 and there is also
> a 0.61. MAIN branch (not quite ready for distribution yet) so some
> things are still maintained in parallel, but some things are also
> diverging due to progress.
>
> > Probably the most challenging part is developing MySpell
> > compatibility interface in Aspell.
>
> Due to your interest in MySpell, you will want to view 0.61 (MAIN) in
> relation to 0.60.3 in CVS:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/aspell/aspell/?only_with_tag=MAIN
There is no need for a tag here just:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/aspell/aspell
> http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/aspell/aspell/?only_with_tag=rel_0_60_3
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/aspell/aspell/?only_with_tag=rel_0_60_1-branch
> > In case the answer is 'yes', then whom should I address?
> > In case the answer is 'no', then are there any
> > objections/considerations on this idea?
>
> You may assume there is intentions to include some sort of MySpell
> compatibility if you look at 0.61 in relation to 0.60.3.
And what gives you this impression?
--
http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org