Changes the "bad news" to be "good news" in the README #17
Conversation
|
why? |
|
The real question here is: why not? |
|
Can we just ban losers like this that keep opening nonsense PRs? |
|
bruh, this is the original source code, not touched since 2011 (with most of the files being in their original 1993 state) |
|
People are stupid. Live and learn |
|
This is nonsense, this is supposed to be the ORIGINAL source code from 1997, if you want to do that then go ahead and make a new fork, might as well do some nonsense engine changes in it. |
| @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ project and make sure that it actually works. Projects tends to rot if | |||
| you leave it alone for a few years, and it takes effort for someone to | |||
| deal with it again. | |||
|
|
|||
| The bad news: this code only compiles and runs on linux. We couldn't | |||
| The good news: this code only compiles and runs on linux. We couldn't | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in that case, change the whole line to:
The good news: this code compiles and runs on linux.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After some after thought, the README should contain things like how you get it up and running, I suggest instead reverting this change and renaming the file to FOREWORD.TXT
|
First of all this is versioned so the original state can be checked out from 4eb368a (the initial commit) So any changes applied are fine as we always have access to the original. Second, even Carmack himself hoped, if you read the README, that there would be a collaborative effort in improving this codebase, instead having this archived and untouched. Yes, anyone can fork, but then you are developing in isolation, like Carmack expected would happen, but wouldn't this be neat if we could actually collaborate and make this, for instance, even runnable stright out of the box? |
|
@orowith2os |
:D