On Tuesday 29 May 2007 11:04:56 MacArthur, Ian (SELEX) (UK) wrote: > Unfortunatley, that example doesn't reflect the reality of open-source > development. No one is assigning workers here, it's a community, folk > just work on the bits that matter to them.
Ok, "assigning" might be a little harsh term, "settling priotities" would be better term :) If not, than here is total anarchy, and all this discussion is useless. On Tuesday 29 May 2007 12:07:23 Duncan Gibson wrote: > I get the idea that if UTF-8 were added to the stable 1.1 then more > users would attracted to fltk, and would stay with fltk. Heck, if As much as I know FLTK 1.x, to be honest I'm beginner with FLTK in general, it's not just UTF-8 support that makes FLTK "would be better" library, there is also cleaner interface, cleaner API, all things putted in namespace... > other, heavy, toolkits that do. [Millan's threat to go to FOX?] Threat!? No, this aint threatening, I already said that it was not supposed to be taken as an ultimatum. Those who work on FLTK both 1.x and 2.x do not directly depend on me in any way (for instance, I don't pay them) so I can hardly "blackmail" them in the sense "either you do this what I tell you to do, or I'm dropping it" :) instead, it was simply my truly intention/opinion. I cannot rely any longer on some library in Alpha stage, which will probably be in that stage of development for another few years, correct me if I'm (ungrateful) wrong, but otherwise would be totally unrational from my side. Every time when I download some FLTK 2.x snapshot, I cross my fingers in hope that it will at least compile with no errors. On Tuesday 29 May 2007 15:35:28 Michael Sweet wrote: > Most of the 2.0 development is being done by Bill, Fabien, and Sanel. > So far this year: I'm curious, why don't they join this discussion and say their opinion?? If library rests mainly on their shoulders, then that is vital, in contrary this all this is just a rant :) > Actually, the number of commits for 1.x this year (195) isn't > significantly higher than 2.0 (127) - 60% 1.x and 40% 2.0. Since > May 2004, 2.0 has 744 commits and 1.1 has 932 commits - 55% 1.x and Sorry, but I don't agree that number of commits, solely, are so much relevant in determining the ammount of effort that is being invested in development of those two libraries. I might change only one, even C++ syntaxicaly, wrong line of code, or even change some comment so doxygen generates proper docs in future, that however does'nt meant that I contributed some new feature to the library or corrected some bug. As I said I'm not developer, but I know that FLTK 2.x is several years in Alpha phaze, with full list of open bugs, almost all of you "route" new users to FLTK 1.x because one can never fully count on FLTK 2.x (and who knows when he could), while on the other side FLTK 1.x has recently reached version 1.8 and is stable for a long time. Now, that should be also taken into account when talking about attention being given to FLTK 1.x and FLTK 2.x. _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
