Great work, everyone involved. I've been following these developments on Cemetech, and I'm very impressed.

It shall be noted that while this release misleadingly uses the "TiLP" name, NONE of the original TiLP developers are involved with this project!

Development of the real thing by Tyler Cassidy and me (Kevin Kofler), 2 of the original TiLP/TiEmu/LPG developers, continues under the CalcForgeLP name, and we're getting close to our first release. (Unfortunately, as we have been forced to change the names of our software due to Lionel's forks usurpating our project names, these renames are taking some time.)

Please visit http://www.calcforge.org/ if you are interested in the current status.

Sorry Kevin, you were forced to fork by Romain, the original Dev. Just because you joined the team before Lionel it does not make your forked tree the origonal one it is still a fork.

I'm as much an original dev as Romain is. A lot of the code in there is mine. Just look at the changelogs. libticonv was even started by me. And the Group File Manager was started by Tyler who's also working on CalcForge (he's the site admin), a lot of the GFM code is his. So this was not Romain's decision to make.

Kevin is focusing mostly on improductive activities: bitching, trolling, polluting the comments of yet another ticalc.org news item to repeat yet again the same thing (his one-sided, uniquely skewed view of persons and years of events in the TI community) and thereby desperately trying to make people believe in his lies.
He's also renaming his forks, he wouldn't have to do that if he were reasonable. He's backporting most user-visible fixes and improvements from upstream, sometimes improving on the patches, but also breaking code that I have tested and committed in a working state, e.g. the DirectUSB ROM dumper, because he doesn't test his changes to linking code.

Romain has always done an outstanding work of collaborating with people, and deserves our gratitude.
Romain proposed Julien to grant me commit rights, thereby *adding* a co-maintainer alongside Kevin, without me having asked explicitly for commit rights. But Kevin dashed every bit of the plan with his anti-cooperative behaviour (demanding that my commit rights be removed, etc.). See [url below my name] (in French).

I have bought 4 calculators in the past few months for testing, yielding one of the major fixes to TI-Z80 support and the major fix to Nspire support. It's easy for me to access Romain's 15 calculators. I am attending various message boards IRC chans and thereby having greater interaction with developers and users.
IOW, I'm trying to do a decent job maintaining that software.
Before being granted developer access, I have been a long-time user, significant bug reporter and significant feature requester to LPG software, making a few patches.

Whose behaviour, and which set of software (the original libti* / TILP / GFM / TIEmu vs. the unreleased forks libcalc* / CalcForgeLP / CalcForge-GFM / Emu-TIGCC, which bear no user-visible advantage wrt. upstream) is more useful to developers and users of the community ?

> But Kevin dashed every bit of the plan with his anti-cooperative behaviour (demanding that my commit rights be removed, etc.).

It's YOU who first decided not to work with me, by endorsing Godzil's "GCC4TI" fork of TIGCC in all possible ways: promoting it at every possible occasion, spamming all discussions about TIGCC with it (i.e. exactly the behavior you're now accusing me of!), doing almost all its development.

> I have bought 4 calculators in the past few months for testing, yielding one of the major fixes to TI-Z80 support and the major fix to Nspire support.

If you have money to spare on buying hardware specifically to work on projects you don't get a cent for, that's nice for you. You can't really expect that from everybody.

> It's easy for me to access Romain's 15 calculators.

How is it my fault that I don't happen to live near Romain?

> I am attending various message boards IRC chans and thereby having greater interaction with developers and users.

Yet me attending this comment board is exactly what you complained about earlier in your post.

> It's YOU who first decided not to work with me
You're truncating events - as usual.
Before that, it's you who refused to work with us, by often refusing to admit that other people can have technically valid ideas, and by actively disregarding user feedback. Romain noted that below too.

> > It's easy for me to access Romain's 15 calculators.
> How is it my fault that I don't happen to live near Romain?
You're missing the point: even if you lived near Romain, don't take for granted that he would let you, notorious control freak and sabotager, access his calculators.

> Yet me attending this comment board is exactly what you complained about earlier in your post.
What I'm complaining about is you lying and polluting discussions - once again.

> the original libti* / TILP / GFM / TIEmu

The "original" ones developed by a newcomer to the projects who had just joined them at the moment of the split…

> vs. the unreleased forks libcalc* / CalcForgeLP / CalcForge-GFM / Emu-TIGCC

vs. the "forks" developed by the 2 remaining active codevelopers of the original projects.

And sure, the applications are unreleased yet (the libs are actually not), but a release is getting closer and closer, I've been working a lot on completing the renames:
* the libs are fully renamed and had their first release a while ago,
* the apps have been updated for the renamed APIs,
* the 2 small apps CalcForgeLP GFM and Emu-TIGCC SkinEdit are also fully renamed and ready for release,
* the 2 main apps CalcForgeLP and Emu-TIGCC both have a new logo and icon, and renaming is progressing.

At that point, users will also benefit from the other changes which have been done in our SVN, including all your fixes and improvements, which we have merged.

> which bear no user-visible advantage wrt. upstream

Not yet. But that might change from now to the release. For example, we MIGHT release with Jon Sturm's CalcForgeLP UI improvements before you do. And what's sure is that once the renaming is done, all FURTHER releases will have user-visible improvements.

> the "forks" developed by the 2 remaining active codevelopers of the original projects.
Tyler "active"... don't make us laugh ;)

> At that point, users will also benefit from the other changes which have been done in our SVN
Most of those changes are invisible or irrelevant to users. And among the rest of your changes, there are untested changes that, unsurprisingly, do not work.
I know that first-hand: I have reviewed, tested, fixed your backport of the 84+ DirectLink USB ROM dumper, and reviewed your independent reimplementation of a draft patch I made public on #ti, which has public logs.
I have even reported the bugginess of your code to your, despite all your attacks and lies. Sure, I also complained about you independently reimplementing code - but if you want to blame someone, blame 1) yourself because you're not attending, or even reading, the places that matter and 2) blame Tyler, who attends #ti, for not telling you.

> all FURTHER releases will have user-visible improvements.
Um. for you, the "improvement" and "fix" words have a meaning that does not necessarily match that of users, as evidenced by the removal of VTI support from TIGCC, the '%'-littered syntax of tiemu+gdb, and other things...

> And among the rest of your changes, there are untested changes that, unsurprisingly, do not work.

They have been fixed already, only hours after the initial commit. I'm doing development in the open, not sitting on it in some vain hope for perfection.

> I have even reported the bugginess of your code to your, despite all your attacks and lies.

You did it in a vague and less than helpful way, intentionally putting me in front of a challenge and wasting my time ("I posted a patch to a chan with public logs, but I won't tell you which one, oh and by the way, your code has at least 2 bugs, but I won't tell you where, now good luck finding the stuff").

> Sure, I also complained about you independently reimplementing code

… which is your own darn fault for not having committed your patches to your SCM. That's what it is for. If you need to fix something, just do another commit later!

I have not been writing any post since 10 months but I think it's necessary to make things clearer...

1) I stopped TiLP & TiEmu development in order to spend more time with my wife and my children.

I decided to give TiLP/TiEmu project to Lionel because he is more "open" and user-friendly. Kevin's behaviour and planning was not compatible with my projects. Although Kevin is a wonderful programmer, he is more interested in controlling projects and imposing his point of view rather than interested by the end user's opinion and user's need (Vti support in TIGCC is an example and VTi-style asm syntax in tiemu-nogcc is another one).

I knew some parts of TiLP/TiEmu were removed (TiEmu without GDB, MSVC support, ...) if I let project to Kevin and I didn't want. The way things are currently evolving make me true.

Kevin has done a great job, that's true. But, it was not possible to let Kevin control TiLP/TiEmu in addition of TIGCC because Kevin is not able to work with people, just against people. Should I remember that Kevin dropped my commit rights on the TIGCC project?

> 1) I stopped TiLP & TiEmu development in order to spend more time with my wife and my children.

Thank you for confirming this. Lionel claimed something very different.

> I decided to give TiLP/TiEmu project to Lionel because he is more "open" and user-friendly.

LOL. Lionel is known for developing in private and dumping patches to the public SCM only hours before the release, weeks after they were developed. He is also doing commits mixing several completely unrelated changes. That's not openness.

> Vti support in TIGCC is an example

There's no actual need for VTI support at all! TiEmu, and soon Emu-TIGCC, does EVERYTHING VTI does, and more. (In particular, it offers a C debugger, which is an essential feature for the vast majority of TIGCC programmers, VTI's assembly-only debugger is completely useless to them.) It also emulates the hardware much more accurately. What sort of a need is there to use VTI over TiEmu?

> and VTi-style asm syntax in tiemu-nogcc is another one

I think consistency in assembly syntax is the way to go: the recommended assembler in TIGCC, which is also the one used by GCC, is the GNU assembler, so it only makes sense for Emu-TIGCC to use the GNU assembler's syntax and not some vaguely A68k-like one. (The ONLY reason TIGCC ships A68k at all is to be able to assemble existing assembly programs written for it. This has always been like that. It is deprecated and not recommended.) In addition, the plan is not just to change the syntax, there is a strong maintainability goal of using only one disassembler instead of 2, and of course not to litter that disassembler with compile-time or runtime conditionals which would make it a PITA to maintain.

(But it shall be noted that I have not even made this particular change yet.)

> > 1) I stopped TiLP & TiEmu development in order to spend more time with my wife and my children.
> Thank you for confirming this. Lionel claimed something very different.
You're lying by omission. While I did claim something very different, I also (and first) claimed that Romain was busy:
"
Fast forward again to mid-2009: Romain Liévin leaves the community because he is pretty busy in real life, but also largely because like many in the community, he can't stand Kevin's destructive (and worsening, sadly) behaviour.
"
I didn't elaborate on the specifics of him being busy, but I know fully well that he's got a wife and two children (I've met them), that he's currently working hard to get a higher degree in teaching, etc. - and that it's perfectly natural that he wants to spend more time with them.

Remember Julien's take on your behaviour (part of a larger post linked below my name):
"assez de ta mégalomanie, de ton délire de persécution, de ta paranoïa, de ton narcissisme, toutes ces choses que tu montres en permanence depuis des années et qui sont de plus en plus fortes"
->
"enough of your megalomania, of your persecution lunacy, of your paranoia, your narcissism, all the things that you've been permanently displaying for years and are getting stronger and stronger".

> LOL. Lionel is known for [...]. That's not openness.
You haven't grasped the concept of patchsets (bits of which have been made public on UTI and #ti), it seems...
On your side... saying mostly "yes" to discussing by e-mail http://tichessteamhq.yuku.com/topic/4749 might be defendable as "openness" - if _all_ stakeholders (starting with Romain and me) are present.

It's not my job to tell a potential contributor how he has to discuss things with me.

FYI, so far, no concrete work has started.

PS: To avoid any misunderstandings: So far, no concrete work has started on THAT PARTICULAR item, i.e. porting the USB code to libusb 1.0.

> I knew some parts of TiLP/TiEmu were removed (TiEmu without GDB

Wrong. I still support --without-gdb and no decision has been made on whether it will stay or not. (But if it will stay, it will be using the libopcodes disassembler also used by the GDB version at some point.) That said, I have no plans to ship binaries built without GDB, as I don't see a concrete need. A GDB-enabled binary works just fine even if you don't use any of GDB's features. An end user who doesn't use the debugger won't even SEE GDB in the first place. (But of course, as long as --without-gdb stays there, there's nothing stopping people from shipping Emu-TIGCC binaries built without GDB support. I just kindly request that they be clearly marked "NO GDB" so people know what they're getting.)

> MSVC support

What's the point of supporting that? It's just a PITA requiring separate project files, duplicated version numbers (which easily get out of sync), annoying coding style restrictions (no mixed declarations and code, no variable-length arrays etc.) and so on, and I have no way to test it. MinGW works just fine, be it using MSYS or cross-MinGW. What USER-VISIBLE benefit would M$VC support bring? The average Window$ user doesn't compile their software from source.

> Should I remember that Kevin dropped my commit rights on the TIGCC project?

Do I need to remind you that the reason I dropped them was that the ONLY thing you have (intentionally) used them for for the last few years was to add Debian packaging metadata (not just to TIGCC/*nix itself, but also to KTIGCC), that you kept doing this even when I told you that the upstream code is NOT the place for distro-specific packaging metadata (i.e. you committed stuff I had EXPLICITLY REJECTED to KTIGCC, which is MY project), and that on TWO occasions, your commits included accidental changes to other files, because you did your builds directly in the checkout instead of an export as you're supposed to and because you didn't verify what you were about to commit (that's what GUIs like Cervisia are for)? You also stubbornly refused to use a diff.gz like any other package with a non-Debian upstream and decided that no debian directory in the upstream code = no Debian packages. And by the way, Lionel agrees with me that packaging metadata doesn't belong into the upstream code, he removed the debian directories as well.

2) Some fixes:
=> "It shall be noted that while this release misleadingly uses the "TiLP" name"
No, I'm the owner of the tilp.ifo domain name (use a 'whois' command if needed). If I had to sell the domain to Lionel to convince Kevin, I will do it...

=> ", NONE of the original TiLP developers are involved with this project!"
Kevin is not the original TiLP or even TiEmu developer. I created TiLP alone and TiEmu with Thomas Corvazier. Tyler Cassidy is the original developer of GFM.
Just take a look at ChangeLog files. Kevin joined these projects a long while after...

=> "due to Lionel's forks usurpating our project names"
again ,it's a lie: I will remember that TiLP and TiEmu are 2 names I created. Given that I let Lionel take over these projects, he is now the owner of those names.

Romain.

> No, I'm the owner of the tilp.ifo domain name (use a 'whois' command if needed).

The domain name is not the same thing as the project name. Domain names can belong even to completely unrelated people, be it for historical reasons or because of outright cybersquatting. In this case, of course you own the domain name, you have historically been the project lead. The problem is that you're trying to control the project even without working on it anymore.

> If I had to sell the domain to Lionel to convince Kevin, I will do it...

For all I care, do it, things are already basically as if you did.

> => ", NONE of the original TiLP developers are involved with this project!"
> Kevin is not the original TiLP or even TiEmu developer. I created TiLP alone and TiEmu with Thomas Corvazier.

OK, I think we have a terminology issue there. What I meant with "original" is the state before your departure and the resulting schism (and before you arbitrarily making Lionel a developer, which caught even him by surprise and which happened very shortly before your departure). The project structure had changed a lot since you originally started those projects years ago. Thomas Corvazier left TiEmu's development long ago. I had been working with you for years. Yet you decided to ignore this and claim the same kind of monarchic authority over the projects as when you started them years ago.

> Tyler Cassidy is the original developer of GFM.

I know. Tyler now works with me on the CalcForge stuff, administrates and pays for its infrastructure and owns calcforge.org. He is one of the 2 people behind CalcForge, I'm the other one. And he is NOT working on the LPG software anymore. (He may or may not still have commit access, ask Julien, but he told me he has no plans to commit anything to Lionel's tree either way.)

> Just take a look at ChangeLog files. Kevin joined these projects a long while after...

Yes. But I did a LOT of work on them for YEARS, as those same changelogs evidence.

In the last few years, I wrote about as much TiEmu code as you did (I'm not about to start a discussion on who did more, frankly I have no idea, but it's in the same order of magnitude), and I also made many improvements to the libraries and a few to TiLP.

In addition, do I need to remind you that libticonv was started from code *I* wrote for TiEmu, that turning it into a library was something we decided TOGETHER on ICQ and that the name "libticonv" was MY idea?

> again ,it's a lie: I will remember that TiLP and TiEmu are 2 names I created.

You invented the names, but you worked on the projects together with other people (Tyler and me) and these people wish to continue continuing development of those projects, not to let Lionel, who's a newcomer to those projects, control them. Let me introduce you to the concept of meritocracy: those who do the work decide. You don't get to appoint an arbitrary successor just because you originally started those projects and to continue controlling them even when no longer working on them.

See my website, in header, for patches as well as screen shots of my changes so far.