Roberto wrote:
More seriously, I am afraid I missed something. what do you mean by
"official support"? If you mean bug corrections and code
maintenance,
one of the main ideas behind Lua is that you do not need us to give
you this assurance. Lua is simple enough to be maintained in-
house, if
necessary (even for small "houses").
By "official support" I mean PUC-Rio's team, or an alternative
group that has assumed responsibility. When trying to pitch a
solution based on Lua, or any technology, management decision-
makers raise the question regarding the long-term viability,
especially against PHP or Perl. It's perverse mentality, to be
honest. You state you are happy with Lua and suggest little
changes will occur in the future (which is a good thing);
management sees this lack of constant updates as a possibility the
project will go away, or worse, Lua developers will join forces
with COBOL programmers and keep the virtual keys to the server room
(COBOL hasn't changed in years, either ;-).
(That said, we do plan to keep playing with Lua for several years.)
So instead of a roadmap for versions, how about a roapmap for
future keepers of the flame? The discussion thread started out as
a question about an official code repository. I believe this to be
a legitimate concern, and should be under the auspices of the
central development team that can apply bug patches, even if Lua
can be maintained in-house, as you state. There can be lots of
unofficial patched versions of Lua, but there should be an official
version that developers pitching solutions can point to in order to
give assurances to those writing the checks that the developer can
be replaced and the technology (Lua) is independent of that
developer. The developer can't be the one pitching the developer's
patched version of Lua. Too much dependence on that developer.
Alternatively, if I have missed something and this is already laid
out clearly, please direct me to it :-)
thanks,
tim
--
"Anything war can do, peace can do better." -- Desmond Tutu