On 22 Feb 2008, at 15:42, Duncan Gibson wrote: > My own feeling is that it should definitely not be 1.2.x because > this will be confused with the existing 1.2 even if it's dormant. > And rather than go for 1.3.x, which could look like a 1.2 update, > make a jump to 1.5.x so that old fltk users will blink when they > see it and are intrigued enough to check out what it really means.
Yes - I guess we'd need to go to 1.3, or at least find some way of distinguishing it without colliding with any existing variant... But ultimately we need to find some way of merging all the enhancements that have been developed in the 1.1.x tree into the fltk-2 tree as well. It seems as if a fair number of the STR's on fltk-2 might go away then, as some look as if they might be dupes of "features" that were fixed already in 1.1.x. (And I'd actually quite like a fltk-2 tree that's stable enough for me to use without tripping over incompatible changes from time to time...! And a better porting layer, so I can use my exisitng code... And...) -- Ian _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
