I'd rather not work on HEAD directly because after creating the basics
for the new mechanism the whole thing will probably not work for some
time (probably 2-4 weeks). But I'd like to be able to check in early so
people can review. I expect that the life time of the branch will not
exceed 8 weeks. So there's almost no chance that alt-design is repeated,
especially since the basic LM infrastructure will not be altered big
time and it looks like we are all going in the same direction for the
new page-breaking. It's clear that it has to be done and it seems to be
moveing in the direction of a derived Knuth approach. It's much like the
migration to the Knuth line breaking and it's mostly the block-level LMs
that will be affected. People can continue to work on HEAD during that
time as long as nothing serious is altered in the block-level LMs which
would make merging difficult.

Before I can kick off we need to agree to the general approach for the
algorithm and clear a few details so we are reasonably sure that it'll
work. Once we have that the plan for the branch should not be a big deal
if we take the above into account.

On 02.03.2005 13:16:42 Glen Mazza wrote:
> --- Chris Bowditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > As for the plan to implement a new page-breaking
> > mechanism: I've got to
> > > do it now. :-) I'm sorry if this may put some
> > pressure on some of you.
> > > I'm also not sure if I'm fit already to tackle it,
> > but I've got to
> > > do it anyway. Since I don't want to work with a
> > series of patches like
> > > you guys did earlier, I'd like to create a branch
> > to do that on as soon
> > > as we've agreed on a strategy. Any objections to
> > that?
> > 
> > If we are going to branch the code for this then we
> > need to make sure we have 
> > a plan to merge the branch back once we are
> > confident in the new page breaking 
> > algorithm. This plan (which should be agreed before
> > branching takes place) 
> > should include an acceptance procedure, e.g. will a
> > single -1 be able to 
> > prevent the code being merged back? We dont want to
> > end up with another 
> > alt-design, which eventually moved to source
> > forge!!!
> > 
> > Chris
> > 
> Either way is fine with me, but Chris brings up a very
> valid point.  If you can tolerate and keep up with my
> minor code housekeeping from time to time in some of
> the layout managers (currently mostly PSLM), feel free
> to work from HEAD directly instead if you wish.
> Glen

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to