I wonder in light of Joaquin's work (see my posting to the "more Xft
stuff" thread), and would like feedback from the whole team, whether
we might not need to have two development branches; one a
continuation of the 1.x line; this would contain Martin's table code,
Joaquin's xft code, footnotes and endnotes code and similar, and
lead toward and intermediate 1.2 release. The second developement
branch would lead to 2.0 release eventually, and would contain the
Pango/gtk2 stuff.
My main reason for this suggestion is that it will take a while before
we have a 2.0 release with the Pango stuff; things are moving along
slower than I have been hoping. However, much work has been
done already that could eventually be released in an intermediate
release, and it would be pitty to hold it back for many months just
because other changes are not yet finished. So, I think the best way
would be to brach present head into 1.x and 2.x development
branches. The present stable would be left as is at present for
bugfixes only, and after the 1.2 release would be replaced with
stable 1.2 branch. The 2.x-dev would be Pango-enabled and gtk2
dependant, so we could remove the #ifdef WITH_PANGO defines as
soon as the Pango code provides basic functionality, while 1.x-dev
would be Pango-less, gtk1 based, so that all the existing Pango code
would be removed from it.
If we agreed this was a good idea, the question remains which
should be the head (I would prefer the Pango/gtk2 branch, as it
would be heading toward the next major release), and what
procedure would be used to for maintaining the non-head dev
branch. The easiest would probably be that each developer would be
responsible to commit all changes to both branches when
applicable, although, we might want to have a formal maintainer, who
would be sent patches.
I am eager to hear you thoughts guys.
Tomas
