Yes, if 163 were fixed, that would change my vote to +1. 163 is the
only know problem with pswing. The other gripes I have with it are
internals, and that can certainly wait.
On Mar 9, 9:42 am, Michael Heuer <heue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > This release is generally solid, with the exception of the pswing
> > package. Since issue 163 has been reopened, and since I've
> > investigated further, I think that pswing has some new problems that
> > weren't in 1.2 (issue 163 being an example). I can't +1 the release,
> > since my client (PhET) relies heavily on pswing. But I can't -1 the
> > release because I think that fixing pswing and bringing it up to the
> > same standards as the reset of Piccolo2D is going to take considerable
> > time, and I hate to see 1.3 delayed any longer.
> If issue 163 were fixed, would that change your vote to +1? I
> wouldn't mind waiting 1.3 until that were the case.
> > If anyone else feels strongly about pswing, then my lack of confidence
> > in its current state may influence your vote. Otherwise, I think PhET
> > should take the lead in fixing & improving whatever version of pswing
> > ships with 1.3. PhET uses it heavily, in some complex situations, and
> > contributed it in (more or less) its current state.
> I would prefer to see PhET using a proper Piccolo2D release rather
> than maintaining a private fork, let us know what it will take to make
> that happen.
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en