On May 29, 2007, at 5:26 PM, MacArthur, Ian ((SELEX)) ((UK)) wrote: > In practice, no one really sets priorities in open source projects - > when the workers are volunteers, you can't tell them which bits to > fix...
I believe it worked pretty well even without hierarchy. I can tell you though that only fixing bugs form 1.1.7 to 1.1.8 and not adding any features is quite nerve wrecking. > That's a large part of why a lot of the distro companies pay > developers > actual money to work on the bits no one else can be bothered with... Yes. Until now, no part of FLTK has ever been paid for AFAIK. >> is also cleaner interface, cleaner API, all things putted in >> namespace... > > Actually, the interface isn't that bad - in the grand scheme of things > it is actually quite sensible and reasonably straightforward. FLTK2 has some better naming (for example all classes derived from Group have "group" in their name, making their use obvious), but the difference between starting a class name with "Fl_" or "fltk::" is nil. Apart form the FLTK1 popup menu mess, FLTK2 is not that advanced, it is just different. >> Sorry, but I don't agree that number of commits, solely, are >> so much relevant ... > > Very true indeed, but I'd guess if you counted the lines... Ah, either one is no measure. I have seen bugs where it took week to find out that a programmer type O instead of 0 and it was messing up code left and right. The SVN commit does not reflect the amount of time that went into the patch or the importance of it. Fact is, FLTK 2.x and FLTK 1.1 are quite far apart. Too far to just throw a compatibility layer on top and everything's peachy. Matthias ---- http://robowerk.com/ _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
