On 15.11.2010, at 21:23, Greg Ercolano wrote: > 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.
Hmm, I hope that there are not too many "will not fix" and "close w/o resolution" STRs for 1.1 out there. It would be very helpful if you could take a look and make a list and post it here. Maybe we could vote, or at least get some echo. In the mean time, I will try to find all the .10 -> .11 conversions. - Matthias _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
