manolo gouy wrote: >> On 26.02.2010 17:33, Albrecht Schlosser wrote: >> >> I've been confident that the existing code two days ago was in a good >> shape to merge back, but now I'm not as sure anymore. See below. > > Albrecht: I don't understand your concern here. > Could you explain it please?
Okay, first of all: this has nothing to do with your coding, there was certainly no offense intended. I apologize if it could be interpreted in such a way. It's just precaution because there were only about two days testing period and probably only three people who tested. The difference between the old and the current code is the Fl_Device abstraction layer. The old code was an extension with only minimal changes in the FLTK core, but the new device abstraction layer is going deeply into the FLTK core, and *maybe* there are side effects that we didn't see, e.g. performance degradation by virtual methods, but also potential unknown side effects. We developers all don't want to have another "dead" project like FLTK 1.2 and now obviously also FLTK 2, so that we should be absolutely sure that (a) the code is okay and works as expected (b) it is the right way to go (c) it is possible to extend it later (d) it is accepted by the developer community. Last but not least, there _is_ a formal process for RFE's defined in the CMP that each RFE should be approved by voting of the developers. I'm not going to ask for votes yet, but I would like to take the opportunity to have as many developers testing the code as possible. The goal is to have it confirmed as soon as possible so that we can merge it back into the main branch to be able to continue with normal development (as opposed to keep two parallel branches). Albrecht _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
