[Lazarus] debugger feature request created

[Martin]

Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
> Martin schrieb:
>> Anyway no one has denied that features are missing. As for debugging 
>> there is a dis-consent about the wording or extend that those missing 
>> feature have (at least between me and you (Graeme).  But  not about 
>> the fact that it would be nice (essential for some) to have.
>> But what can be done? There are limited amount of people to do the 
>> work on Lazarus. So it takes time.
>
> IMO one thing should be done:
>
> Split Lazarus into an Stable and an Featured/Experimental branch. 
> Remove all half-baked and troublesome features from the Stable branch, 
> then make the remainder work properly, and add the most reqired yet 
> missing features, step by step. Then base the Experimental branch 
> (classes...) on the Stable branch, respecting *all* determined 
> stability requirements.
> IMO too much time and efforts is spent in new features and eye candy, 
> while other features are blocked by bad design of essential classes, 
> and the project members do not allow for the required downstripping.
Well again the question of man power.

Right after 0.9.26.2 was released, Vincent had ask if any one wanted to 
maintain the fixes branch, no one came forward (afaik).

Also having a branch doesn't change what people work on:
- If people still work on the "eye candy" (besides it is not as if 
people did only that), then those features would eventually be merged, 
and no other work was done on the stable branch.
- You still needed the people who do the "most required yet missing 
features"

I am not sure what was required to be down striped, but I would be 
surprised if the reason for not doing it was eye candy. So I doubt that 
a branch would help.

It has been done the other way round. Where huge experimental changes 
have been done in a branch and later merged. For example the "lcl 
smartlink" branch.
I am sure if there was a request, and someone behind it to do the work, 
and if the concept of the changes was *agreed* on, then a branch could 
be created, and later merged back (just my opinion).

As for getting the essentials done. the problem is to find a volunteer. 
The "developers" are volunteers too, they do what they volunteered for. 
Not what some one else would want them to do (well actually plenty of 
times they do, what others want).

Best Regards
Martin