Greg Ercolano wrote:
> Michael Sweet wrote:
>> FWIW, if there *are* people interested in pushing 1.x forward (I'm
>> one of them), there is no reason to fork. We just create a new 1.2
>> branch from 1.1.x and move forward on fltk.org.
>
> Branch.. I meant branch! ;)
I get the sense that the desire folks have to drop 1.x
is there's a perception maintaining it has been holding
back 2's progress. (gga/Sanel) Is that the case, though?
If not, and 2.x folks are already full focus on 2.x, and that
the 1.x folks currently maintaining 1.x can just continue,
seems there's no wasted effort, and that issue can be put to rest.
Because if it was, I know I'd sleep better knowing 1.1.8 is not
the end of the line.
BTW, I'd be happy to help with the fltk-utf8 sync-up to 1.1.x.
As long as we're breaking the abi, would this be a good time
to also bring over the abi bugs/rfe's not applied to 1.1.x,
or is that biting off too much? eg:
1.1.8 current
|\____________
| |
| utf8 branch
| |
: fixes :
: / : (time passes: utf8 merge WIP)
:/ :
1.1.x X <-- completed: 1.1.8-utf8
: | (begin abi rfe/bug mods)
: fixes :
: / : (time passes: abi rfe/bugs WIP)
:/ :
1.1.x X <-- completed: 1.1.8-utf8 with abi rfe/bug mods
(freeze) |
\ /
\__(merge)__/
1.2.0
:
: fixes
: /
:/
1.2.x
:
:
eventually obsoleted
by 2.x
_______________________________________________
fltk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
