No, just...no. This is entirely different to what you told us. We agreed to the rollback, based on your statements, which were never hypothetical. It's been 18 days since the deadline for any nay-saying, and we have been working under the premise that this was green-lit, as no-one has said anything to denote otherwise, until now.
Everything that I stated in the message from 5th/6th March still stands:
Spoiler: show
Reiterating this now, and here, because it's only even clearer now that out goals clash. @Saffith 's responses in this thread only further my belief that what we want to do clashes with what he wants to do, which pretty much means we need to do our own thing.
Never going to happen, I'm afraid. I have far too much time committed to my work to even consider converting it, and I have no interest in doing it anyway. I'd rather just erase all of my work to date, than waste even more time converting it. I wouldn't touch it, even in the future, if it wasn't 100% capable of compiling the existing script library. Plus, I've already devoted enough time and effort into learning, and tinkering with the Flex parser.
@ZoriaRPG : You may just change your mind about working on ZScript when you see the angelscript module do the same things, plus more, with only about 10% or less of the work ZScript would take. I'm also planning on plugging in a JIT compiler at some point in the future, which would allow scripts to be compiled to machine code and run closer to c/c++ speed.
I'll end up doing the ZScript changes, as will at least Dimentio, one way or another, just as we've said, repeatedly: If the rollback doesn't happen, please just jump to v3 and be done, so that we can get on with what we want to do without having version number conflicts.
Really, I'm getting tired of the back and forth on deciding what to do with this, to the point that if we can't resolve this very soon, either I'm just going to do my own thing and not care if there are conflicts, or toss the whole thing, along with all of what I've been doing for the last 3.5 years in a rubbish bin and move on with my life. I absolutely do not want to muck with JIT compilers. Been there, done that, never going to do it again.
We've been planning on how we want to expand ZC 2.5x for a long while now, and when the source release that we've been anticipating for so long was a wholly different beast to what we wanted to work on, it came as more of a slap in the face than some huge reward. it's been another two months, and it's still the same circular argument. We want to expand what we have, not convert it. That's all.
Short of that, you pretty much lose all the volunteers that you have at present.
I'll also note that we could already have a 2.53 release done, if everything in the repo wasn't so mangled. The Git repo for a 2.5 trunk should be no more than your last working path of 2.50.2/3 with all the support files, laid out exactly as they are on your system, so that all one need do is download the ZIP, unarchive it, open VS, and Build. Instead, we have to manually meddle with everything, grab external stuff, and then we still run into problems.
Now we're going back and forth between two completely different models, because of LOC?!
Please either work on ZC3, or 2.6. One or the other, pretty please. If you want to force AngelScript, then please just slap a ZC3 label on, it, send us a ZIP file of your 2.5x layout, and we'll make our own 2.5 repo as we planned from the onset. If we have to keep waiting just for a decision on this, then it's not open-source: It's shared closed source.
2.50.2 works, and is proven. It should have been the initial commit. We want to use that as a base, not something wholly new.
@Dimentio @Grayswandir @Samer