Talk:TIGCC

message: I think the start of the pedia is false: Mr Kevin Kofler (the last of the TIGCC team) says that TIGCC does not come from TI and GCC but mean: 'The Incredible Graphing Calculator Compiler'. See [] last line --90.2.226.74 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the original acronym may have been derived from "TI" and "GCC", as of 1999 it was corrected to stand for "The Incredible Graphing Calculator Compiler." This is the correct expansion of the acronym. (Agree with OP.) KMeyer (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1999 is the date the original project was founded, the "The Incredible Graphing Calculator Compiler" expansion is more recent. Unfortunately, I don't remember the date of its first use. What's sure is that TI-GCC became TIGCC very early in its history because of trademark concerns and didn't have an official expansion since that change. --213.47.68.123 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of which is the original, we should use the current one. However, looking at the TIGCC website, there's actually no reference to either being the correct expansion. While the left pane does say "The Incredible Graphing Calculator Compiler", it's not explicitly stated that it's the official expansion of the term "TIGCC". Indeed, there might be no correct expansion! CHL (aka yse) (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

message: As I understand it this does not meet criteria for significance in an encyclopaedia article. It hardly exists as such: it has one patch difference from mainline TIGCC (one that was reverted earlier in mainline) and is the result of two members of the community who dislike the project head. As another member of the community that approves the project head (kkofler) and the direction he chooses to steer the project, I believe this "fork" is not a significant body of work on its own. It serves only to express the two fork-ers dislike for kkofler. As it does not exist yet, adding it to wikipedia is premature. KMeyer (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know the fork really exist (have a Trac, SVN repository, 2 or more commiters, a real mailinglist, and more), and have more than a simple patch between the tigcc mainline and it. It is not currently public for a lot of reason (and Mr Kofler is one of them) as my source say me, the fork will be available at least on the start of 2009. And why Mr Kofler need someone else to modify and try to use FUD for this pedia modification and do not do it himself?--90.2.226.74 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've heard the fork is mostly a repository for rejected patches to mainline. FUD isn't a word that really means anything here, you are just two developers whose patches have been rejected from mainline, and instead of fixing the patches, have decided to create a "fork." Please stop with the politics and just fix your patches. KMeyer (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but you are wrong, the fork is not only "rejected patches that provide nothing" but real patchs that Kevin Kofler rejected because it only dislike them. And I'm sure that "what you heard" is only from Kevin.--Godzil (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All the rejected patches were rejected for at least one good reason, often several. And information about GCC4TI belongs into a GCC4TI article, not here. I added a link to GCC4TI to this article, that's as much as belongs here! GCC4TI is not TIGCC. Your claim that your small group of followers is a "not small portion of the community" is heavily POV-biased. And your "list of contributors" to TIGCC which only cites 3 people, which somehow all happen to be French, at least 2 of which participate in GCC4TI (and the third being the author of another competing compiler) and who all (well, at least 2 of them) contributed less (for 2 of your 3: a lot less) than many people you didn't cite (Thomas Nussbaumer, Jocelyn "Wazabbe" Berendonner, Joey Adams to cite a few, see also  for some more names) is a really bad attempt at a joke. Please quit vandalizing this article with POV-biased misinformation. --213.47.68.123 (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy solution: whoever is responsible for the "fork" (I'm not debating the meaning in this post) might start their own Wikipedia entry, or perhaps more appropriately a private web page, for the software.  Once the software's functionality comes to fruition or reaches substantial magnitude, it may warrant it's own Wiki entry and/or mention in the TIGCC wiki.  Regardless, it's not right to mention contributors who really have nothing to do with TIGCC in its current form.  On the TIGCC wiki, it is enough to mention that a fork is being developed, perhaps with an external link. 96.252.100.29 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Community Fork"