Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [pcgen] Re: move on, nothing to see here

Expand Messages
  • Chip Dunning
    Then why don t you *volunteer* *your time* to the data monkeys with the express idea of keeping up the 3.0 tree. The thing about open source is that since it
    Message 1 of 62 , Jan 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Then why don't you *volunteer* *your time* to the data monkeys with the
      express idea of keeping up the 3.0 tree. The thing about open source is
      that since it is all "give" work people tend to work on the things that
      interest them. So, if nobody is working to maintain the 3.0 branch then
      obviously nobody who gives of the time feels they want to do the work.

      What you really want is for someone to give of their time to a project
      so that it can support what *you* want. I am sure the Data Monkeys would
      love to have your time given in support of the 3.0 base. Unless of
      course you are just interested in complaining instead of getting involved.

      Do you have something to prove that 50% comment - or is it just another
      strawman for you to kick around?


      Chip


      Steve Gilroy wrote:

      > The point I was makeing, which obviously went over your head, was that
      > just because something came out a few months ago with a higher version
      > number doesn't mean that everyone is going to switch just because it is
      > the "newest" thing.
      >
      > I have no problem in this area finding old car parts (even light bulbs
      > which are still manufactured for classic and restored cars).
      >
      > I knew I would have problems getting the data I want in PCGen also
      > (namely IP). However when data is added to PCGen it should be complete
      > and functional or removed. I know none of the data in PCGen is complete
      > or completely functional, because this is a living project. However
      > work on last years data sets should not completely stop because a new
      > version came out...Especially when atleast 50% of the existing gaming
      > community is still using it.
      >
      > bblackmoor wrote:
      >
      >
      >>Steve Gilroy <sgilroy2@w...> wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>>Ok, going on that line of thought...
      >>>What year is your car?
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >>I used to drive a 1967 Mustang. I had a hell of a time finding bulbs
      >>for the backup lights because they didn't make them anymore (and in
      >>Virginia, it won't pass inspection without those bulbs). Before that I
      >>drove a 1973 Type III VW fastback. I couldn't tell you all the
      >>problems I had finding parts for it. The point is that I knew that I
      >>would have those kinds of problems when I chose those cars, and I
      >>chose them anyway because that's what I wanted to do. That's the
      >>trade-off I make when I opt for an obsolete car/OS/game system/whatever.
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>>I can keep going, but I think everyone gets my point....
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >>You don't have a point: no one drives a 1973 Type III VW fastback by
      >>accident.
      >>
      >>Incidentally, I currently drive 2003 Hyundai Tiburon. It is, in every
      >>way, superior to both the Mustang and the VW, but I still sometimes
      >>miss them. They were a challenge to own and keep running: that was
      >>part of what I enjoyed about them. Those of use who choose to stick
      >>with obsolete game systems feel precisely the same way, and we do not
      >>care to be patronized by the likes of you. Keep your excuses for
      >>someone who needs them.
      >>
      >>I do not intend to respond to you on this topic again.
      >>
      >>bblackmoor
      >>2004-01-31
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>PCGen's release site: http://pcgen.sourceforge.net
      >>PCGen's alpha build: http://rpg.plambert.net/pcgen
      >>PCGen's FAQ:
      >>http://rpg.plambert.net/pcgen/current/_docs/
      >>
      >>
      >>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>To visit your group on the web, go to:
      >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/
      >>
      >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >>pcgen-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
      >>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
    • Barak
      It basically depends on how they were written by the publisher. I would imagine any new sources publishers produce will be geared towards 3.5 and that s how
      Message 62 of 62 , Feb 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        It basically depends on how they were written by the publisher.

        I would imagine any new sources publishers produce will be geared towards
        3.5 and that's how they'll be coded for PCGen.

        Older stuff was obviously created for 3.0 rules and so will be coded that
        way.

        I would presume if OGL publishers put out conversion documents, we'd have a
        set for each ruleset. :p

        Barak
        ~PCGen BoD
        ~OS Silverback


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Jay - Firesbane [mailto:firesbane2@...]
        >
        > Barak,
        > Thank you for chiming in.
        > I have a related question regarding outside sources. Are the
        > bulk of them
        > written to work with 3.0 or 3.5, or does it not matter.
        >
        > --Jay
        >
        > > Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:25:53 -0500
        > > From: "Barak" <barak@...>
        > >Subject: RE: Re: move on, nothing to see here
        >
        >
        > <snip>
        > >The upshot is that *both* are going to be supported to the
        > best of our
        > >ability. We will *not* forsake one for the other.
        > >
        > >Barak
        > >~ PCGen BoD
        > >~ OS Silverback
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.