Bob wrote: > This latter won't always be possible. In general, a new > script command requires changes to Token, Eval, Viewer, > JmolConstants, Frame, ModelManager, and > possibly new classes.
Changes of this magnitude are particularly the ones that I am uncomfortable with. > I would like to add: > > * All new features to be discussed and agreed upon by > consensus on this list prior to implementation. > * All commits isolated to one specific topic. > * Use of Eclipse autoformating requested at least as > a starting point for all new methods. > * No use of file-wide autoformating. Ever. > * No changes "just to clean up the formatting." Good topics of discussion for going forward ... after this release. [snip] >> Feature related >> --------------- >> r4504,r4506 - frame play ?? Don't mnow whether >> or not this involved changes to the threading model ?? [snip] >> r4659,r4662,r4663,r4668,r4669,r4674 - polyhedra >> ?? Why was an Atom constructor introduced that creates >> a fake/artificial atom ?? Based upon your characterization of the complexity, neither of these features will make it in to the 10.1 release. [snip] > Other concerns Bob has > ---------------------- > > --Your schedule is very ambitious. The whole purpose of my 'rollback' decision was to make an attempt to be less ambitious. There are a number of Jmol users who are still running the 10.00 release ... from over a year ago. Those users should get a new release, especially prior to the addition of lots of new features and potential restructuring of system internals. I made a mistake by not releasing 'official' releases more frequently. We will make 'official' releases more frequently going forward. The exact schedule will be a good topic of discussion ... after this release. > --I'd like to add dipoles before 10.1. The code is all > there (on my local set); Bob, I am sure that it is great ... like all of the features that you have worked on in the past 2 months. But this feature will not go into the 10.1 release. These major features are exactly the things that I am eliminating from the release. There was over a year of changes prior to your getting actively involved in coding in Feb 2006. Those changes, in and of themselves, are some cause for concern. As I have said, it is clear that I should have made more frequent 'official' releases and that would have avoided some of this. I believe that it is best for Jmol that we release stable code. I believe that it is best for Jmol if we have a good reputation for code quality so that people are eager to upgrade, not reluctant to upgrade. You may disagree with my decision. But please believe that my intentions are good and are based upon my experience in the software industry. I am going to push out the 10.1 release ... then we will talk about how we should structure things going forward. Miguel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Jmol-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
