Matthias Melcher wrote:
> On 15.11.2010, at 19:06, Albrecht Schlosser wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should also update (some of) the image libs, because
>> there are some security updates, but we need to check this.
>> I'm not keen on finding out that we need to update FLTK's image
>> libs because of incompatibilities.
>
> No, please. This is exactly what I am afraid of. We will end up tweaking
> 1.1.11 until it's 1.3.0 without utf-8 ;-)
>
>> Maybe I can help doing the pre-release stuff (updating version
>> numbers and so on, updating the web docs, if necessary) and some
>> of the known issues (e.g. STR #2199, #2408, #2410).
>
> Yes, that would be great. But the main focus should still be 1.3.0!
I can suggest this, since I don't mind doing patch janitorial.
(Anything's better than (re)learning Xlib, LOL)
I'd be willing to walk back through the 'will not fix' STRs
for 1.1.10 that seem critical and generate a list here of those
that seem critical enough to re-open/re-assign to 1.1.11.
I can probably do the same for critical 1.3.x STRs.
This way you guys can vote em. and then I/we can try
to derive and apply patches to 1.1.11.
Some attention should be made to ignore fixes that are
too large in scale. We should also watch for patches that
only work in the context of other patches we maybe wouldn't
supply.
Even if we make no changes to 1.1.11, it's probably worth
the exercise of the above just to see what 1.1.11 might be
missing.
Or maybe this has already been organized ('known issues'
document I think someone referred to)?
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
