Re: [Simulavr-devel] docs and naming [was: Re: Emergency Makefile and config.h for manual configuration]

[Bill]

Eric, this is not exactly directed at you, but I picked your post to 
reply to. I hold you in high regard. In fact, I've kept your previous 
emails in my todo-folder! (now I just need to get to the "do" part..) 
With this in mind, here we are:

I'd like to let this thread die. It serves no useful purpose at the moment.

I'm one of the 2 maintainers of the simulavr project. Klaus and I decide 
how this will go. Eric, you have my complete permission to contact me 
direclty any time you wish, you have my ear. If you desire, we can take 
this offline. I'll be the first to admit that I may not properly 
appreciate the "big picture" here.

As for public discussion on this, I'd like to close it now though. Here 
is why:
1.) I could go on for about a page and a half on where I think this is 
headed. No point though, my crystal ball doesn't work any better than yours
2.) simulavr and simulavrxx are 2 DIFFERENT programs. Period. End of 
discussion. Thx Tobi, I saw your post too.
3.) simulavr(xx) tool users are technically oriented...I like to think 
even reasonably intelligent. Explain it where you like. (I'm more than 
happy to modify our area to clarify, please send me specific 
suggestions) Just stick to the facts, is all I ask. I trust the 
community to be able to sort it out well enough if you explain.

The real problem I can guess at is that for some, simulavr really is the 
right solution at the moment. Most I believe should look at simulavrxx. 
Imperfect I know, but this is the reality. The Simulavr pages don't 
properly explain this either. I'll admit that. In fact, it is so valid a 
point, I'm going to look into rectifying this now, instead of working on 
the bulid scripts. (you know, removing the dependence on swig where swig 
is not installed, etc...)

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your efforts, I just ask that you 
focus on productive topics that contribute the the functionality/quality 
of the product at the moment.  If this topic really interests you, 
please volunteer to update the documentation for me. Otherwise, please 
respect my request.

I'm done with this thread. It will recieve no futher attention.






E. Weddington wrote:

> Paul Schlie wrote:
>
> > > It's reasonable to us because we're developers.
> > > Try explaining it to the... (let me check)... 33,000+ users who 
> > > download
> > > WinAVR. A simple name would suffice and be helpful.
> > >   
> >
> >
> > Suspect you can name it whatever you want to in winavr's distribution...
> > just please don't indirectly kill simulavr because you'd like use its 
> > name.
> >
> >
> >  
>
> My intent was not to kill simulavr; it's just that users will have 
> questions, such as:
> - Why is it called SimulAVRXX now, instead of SimulAVR?

It's not.

> - Why do I have to use simulavrxx.exe?

You don't have to. (simulavrxx.exe doesn't exist yet, btw...)

> - What happened to simulavr?

Nothing. See the Simulavr project on Savannah

> - What's the difference between simulavrxx and simulavr?

See Savannah project for Simulavr.

> - Why didn't they keep the name simulavr? and just change the version 
> number?

It started as a parallel experimental project, not a replacement. See 
the Simulavr project on Savannah.

> etc.

Serisously though, Eric. If you feel you need answers like this, a 
mini-faq if you like, I'll help you with this. I think I'll use your 
questions here on the website, so that you don't have to maintain it. It 
probably shouldn't be your responsibility. I know we are slow though, so 
I can give you feedback right away if you want to take that route and 
use it in your own work.

> _______________________________________________
> Simulavr-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/simulavr-devel