Matthias Melcher wrote: > In case FLTK2 development has stopped completely and no developer is > around anymore, I will propose the unthinkable. Yes, you read right, > <shaky voice> ~~~the unthinkable~~~ </shaky voice>. > > Seriously though. If FLTK has stalled completely, I propose that:
This should read: If FLTK *2* has stalled completely ... > 1: we officially end the 2.x line of code ... and move it into a subversion branch (like 1.2) > 2: we fix Fl_Text_Editor in 1.3 and release a somewhat utf8 capable 1.3 > based on 1.1.9 okay > 3: we officially end 1.3 development > 4: we take the carcass of 2.x and move whatever is worthy into the 1.3 > source tree and call that 3.0 ... and make this the new subversion head (may be surprising for FLTK-2 users who use "svn update", but IMHO they could switch to the branch (svn switch --relocate), and that's it! Even if they have local mods in their working copies. A simple announcement a few weeks before the switch would suffice. If we do it right, we can even keep the history (that is I hope that this would work). > 5: we add a compatibility layer that will allow 2.x software to link to > 3.0 - at least the basics sounds difficult to me. Maybe compile and link, yes, but how could we do the coordinate transformation, layout() and resize() differences, and maybe more? But worth to think about it anyway. > 6: focus on 3.0 > 7: focus on 3.0 > 8: focus on... you get the drift. > > Insane, I know. But what we are currently doing is no better. Insane: I don't know. Probably lots of work to move 2.0 stuff over into the new 3.0 line. But I definitely like the idea. :-) We're currently suffering from the confusion, especially of new users, and the fact that there is no clear line with the versioning. Making 3.0 the head of the subversion tree, the newest version, and the only officially supported one, should make things much clearer. Albrecht _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
