So what would be some of the main differences between fltk1.3 and fltk2? Other than less bugs and current development, what are the advantages of 1.3 for new development?
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:32:02 -0700, Greg Ercolano wrote: > Scott A Thisse wrote: >> In retrospect, it's too bad that the name is "fltk2". It makes it very >> likely that new adopters will naively pick it as "the latest", get used >> to it, then learn that fltk-1.3 is really the latest and greatest. I >> unfortunately say that with firsthand experience. > > Indeed. FLTK2 kind of fell silent on its own, without official comment > from their developers. > > Since the 1.x folks seem to be the only ones around, the job seems to > be ours to document its status. The cultures have been so separate and > the change so gradual, the issue has gone un-addressed. > >> Would it be more intuitive if the numbering scheme was altered to make >> fltk-1.3 become fltk3? > > Heh, 'hop over' the problem, so to speak? > > An interesting idea, but I think it sends the wrong message; a bump in > the major version number would indicate a disruptive change to the API, > which is not the case at all in 1.3.x; it's /very/ back compatible with > 1.1.x > >> Would it be useful and/or appropriate to include a >> warning/clarification about 2.0 on the library download pages? > > I think that might be the way to go; a heads up that the development of > fltk2 has stalled until further notice, and is a project looking for > new developers. > >> Also, on the library download page, the commands provided for >> subversion access show the 2.0 command first, then the 1.3 command >> below it. I'm embarrassed to say that I've been careless enough to get >> caught by that one more than once. > > Yes, good point, and I think is a major source of confusion. _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
