Quote:
Originally Posted by elibrarian
I've seen this so many times repeated (not just from DiapDealer) the last few years. And since most questions/angry posts/pleadings about Sigil comes from users trying to use Sigil for various purposes it was never meant for, usually misguided by the (not so) wysiwyg BookView, haven't the time come to bite the bullet and remove the blasted thing?
- Just a thought …
Regards,
Kim
|
Of course it's time. But if you saw how intertwined it is in all of Sigil's logic, you'd understand that the process of a successful BookView-ectomy isn't going to be a straightforward process at all.
It's going to be a matter of removing something and then testing
everything to see what broke as a result and figuring out how to fix it. It means potentially leaving the tree in a broken or unstable state for long periods of time--something we're always loathe to do. Or worse yet, stopping all current Sigil development/progress/bugfixes while we work in a new development branch (so we don't have to deal with merging concurrent commits from two separate branches into one coherent branch down the road). All in the handful of spare hours either of us have to contribute at any given time.
So you'll have to forgive us if we choose to take a seemingly inordinate amount of time preparing and warning users, and laying out a plan for successfully, carefully and hopefully seamlessly, excising an integral part of Sigil's codebase instead of just "getting on with it." It's not like Book View is a block of code we can just delete.