Greg Ercolano wrote: > ... > Mike, this might be something only you can answer; so far the > opinions against 1.x continued dev seem based on a perception > that 1.x dev is holding back 2.x development. > > But is that actually the case?
No, I haven't been working on 2.0 because I don't understand the new code base enough to be comfortable making changes and don't have time to learn (at least not right now...) I also use 1.1.x on a daily basis, and so when I do find problems I'm much more likely to fix them than a 2.0 problem that someone else reports. 2.0 is considerably different than 1.x. While there are certainly design/philosophy similarities between the two, they are really two different libraries at this point, sharing a common 1.0 ancestry. > ... > This being a volunteer effort, I don't think there are actually > folks being pulled away from 2.x because they're forced to maintain 1.x. > I perceive folks work on 2.x or 1.x as they please, and are driven > by their own whims. The decision to continue 1.x or not should > (hopefully) not deter 2.x dev, and only be driven by a need for > its continuance. > ... Most of the 2.0 development is being done by Bill, Fabien, and Sanel. So far this year: User Cmts Percent ----------- ---- ------- yuri 2 1.6% dejan 4 3.1% cwarrens 5 3.9% sanel.z 14 11.0% fabien 20 15.7% spitzak 82 64.6% For 1.x, Matthias (120/61.2%), me (59/30.1%), and Fabien (16/8.2%) are the contributors this year. So, aside from Fabien there is no overlap between the two trees. -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com Internet Printing and Publishing Software http://www.easysw.com _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
