On Sunday 29 November 2009 19:49, Phil Hess wrote:
> Juha,
>
> I test the 5 major widgetsets with several packages of custom controls that
> I've ported from Delphi and the Qt widgetset appears to be the least
> stable:
>
> http://web.fastermac.net/~MacPgmr/OrphPort/OrphStatus.html#Status_Controls
Selon Thierry Andriamirado :
>
> Now I'm sure that even if there's official websites & wiki, which are
> great & useful, 'something' is still missing. What about a task force,
> group (or whatever) focusing on Communication & PR issues?
>
> Best,
> Thierry
This is a great idea. If we could start U
Hi Florian,
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Florian Klaempfl
wrote:
> Tom Lisjac schrieb:
>> To compare, Linux is now running corporate
>> datacenters around the world... and Lazarus is still in beta with very
>> few public applications deployed.
>
> The same might be applied to delphi too: it a
Brad Campbell wrote:
G'day all,
My application does some heavy lifting under the splash screen.
Periodically (every 500ms) the processor updates a label.caption on the
splash screen and calls Application.processmessages.
Hold that question. I can now no longer reproduce this behaviour...
First of all let me congratulate you all on the look and feel of Lazarus
0.9.28.
The apps that are produced look much better. The Buttons and Check
Boxes look wonderful compared to 0.9.26.
1. On the Addpie, the following used to display a label, it no longer
does and I don't see an example:
G'day all,
My application does some heavy lifting under the splash screen. Periodically (every 500ms) the
processor updates a label.caption on the splash screen and calls Application.processmessages.
On GTK2 / Win32 / Carbon on OSX 10.4 this works perfectly. On 10.5 & 10.6 it queues the update
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 09:14:52PM -0700, Tom Lisjac wrote:
>> The problem I see is credibility... or "if we write a lot of code with
>> Lazarus/FPC, will it be maintainable with the project in perpetual
>> beta?".
>
> Personally I think
Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
Why do you develop fpGUI and don't help to improve MSE :)?
I had a look at MSE, and I can not and will not provide anything, as
long as all the names are unreadable (lower case). Otherwise both fpGUI
and MSE are worth a look, because both have clearly restricted goa
Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
I still stand to my argument that wrapping
existing components on each platform (instead of creating custom
written ones) is a disaster!
As far as I understood, it's an axiom of the lazarus project to use the
native widgetset ;)
...what implies that not all compone
Phil Hess schrieb:
I test the 5 major widgetsets with several packages of custom controls that
I've ported from Delphi and the Qt widgetset appears to be the least stable:
http://web.fastermac.net/~MacPgmr/OrphPort/OrphStatus.html#Status_Controls
Wow, great work :-)
DoDi
--
__
2009/11/29 Phil Hess :
>
> http://web.fastermac.net/~MacPgmr/OrphPort/OrphStatus.html#Status_Controls
>
I'm curious... I once installed but never used TovcXXX controls (years
ago and can't remember if it was Delphi or Lazarus).
What exactly does the TOvcController do? And do you have an example o
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders :
Do you have a better name, that we can use during the 0.9.30 series
of releases?
Here is my list of the top of my head. From what you described "fixes"
to be, I think the most appropriate choice might be "next_xx". But
here are a
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders :
>
> Do you have a better name, that we can use during the 0.9.30 series
> of releases?
Here is my list of the top of my head. From what you described "fixes"
to be, I think the most appropriate choice might be "next_xx". But
here are a few more.. _xx = replaced by v
2009/11/29 Aleksa Todorovic :
>
> Let me guess Graeme's suggestion: release_1.0 ;-)
:-)
That gave me a good laugh.
--
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/
--
__
Hi All
I know this is not a Zeos forum but I am new to Lazarus and still trying
to decide whether it can meet the needs of an upcomming major open
source initiative.
I am trying some simple db connectivity. Everything works under XP but I
have a failure using the same code under Fedora11.
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users.
Masturbation doesn't lead to propagation.
SCRN
DoDi
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailma
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
If you then look at
http://delphi.wikia.com/wiki/Borland_Compiler_Conditional_Defines
the next lazarus version will be 15.0 or 22.0 depending on which Delphi
version number you take.
It might be a good idea to separate the IDE from the LCL, and possibly
to versi
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
- versionnumer:=max(other versionnumbers)+1
Then we should release Lazarus 2011 just now, signaling that it will be
finished in 2011, or will be superseded by Lazarus 2012 next year. This
should leave enough time to fix the most important issues...
DoDi
--
___
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
The problem I see is credibility... or "if we write a lot of code with
Lazarus/FPC, will it be maintainable with the project in perpetual
beta?".
Personally I think this discussion is funny, weeks before 2.4.0 comes out
and lazarus faces a transition to a new resour
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 20:25, Vincent Snijders
wrote:
> Do you have a better name, that we can use during the 0.9.30 series of
> releases?
Let me guess Graeme's suggestion: release_1.0 ;-)
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
>
> Why do you develop fpGUI and don't help to improve MSE :)?
Have you ever tried to read the MSEgui code? I can't. :-) It's also
too different from VCL to me. Plus Martin is VERY protective of HIS
code (but that's his right). Those are simply points I can't work
wit
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders :
So, the goal of the fixes branch (maybe a bad name) is not to maintain
compatibility with the previous release, but to have a releasable branch
Thanks for the explanation. Clearly I got it wrong then. The branch
name "fixes_xxx" is misl
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders :
>
> So, the goal of the fixes branch (maybe a bad name) is not to maintain
> compatibility with the previous release, but to have a releasable branch
Thanks for the explanation. Clearly I got it wrong then. The branch
name "fixes_xxx" is misleading then.
--
Regard
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> 2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
>> Don't forget that fpgui started before lazarus/lcl but people joined
>> lazarus/lcl and fpgui died till you revived it.
>
>
> Well just imagine how far and how stable Lazarus & LCL could have been
> if there was only one widgetset ever
Juha,
I test the 5 major widgetsets with several packages of custom controls that
I've ported from Delphi and the Qt widgetset appears to be the least stable:
http://web.fastermac.net/~MacPgmr/OrphPort/OrphStatus.html#Status_Controls
Thanks.
-Phil
- "Juha Manninen" wrote:
> On sunnunta
On sunnuntai, 29. marraskuuta 2009 20:05:28 Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> GTK2 is also not the ideal widgetset for all Linux users - especially
> from a developer point of view, having to look at the GTK2 API. I
> personally dislike Gnome + GTK2 (from a user and developer point of
> view). Clearly oth
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
I meant, code working with lazarus 1.0.0 must be compilable at least by
all 1.0.x releases.
Isn't this already done with the "fixes" branches vs Trunk branch? So
again, the developers wouldn't have to change their working style at
all.
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
>
> Don't forget that fpgui started before lazarus/lcl but people joined
> lazarus/lcl and fpgui died till you revived it.
Well just imagine how far and how stable Lazarus & LCL could have been
if there was only one widgetset everybody developed on. The speed at
whic
Samuel Herzog schreef:
If I look at the remaining 44 Open Points of 0.9.30 then I suggest the
following:
A) bugs without a simple test-project to reproduce the problem should be
moved to next version.
Which reports do you have in mind?
B) bugs which are not reproducable should be moved to
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> I still stand to my argument that wrapping
> existing components on each platform (instead of creating custom
> written ones) is a disaster!
As far as I understood, it's an axiom of the lazarus project to use the
native widgetset ;)
Don't forget that fpgui started be
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders :
>
> I want more gtk2 developers (and thus users, that order), so I don't
I want many things too... if I'm going to get those things, is a whole
different story. ;-)
> reports, because of more windows users, a better win32 lcl and ide and a
> lagging gtk2 widget set,
2009/11/29 Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ :
>
> I suspect that LCL widget set implementations might benerfit from some sort
> of separate versioning numbers as far is what is reported as being
> "official" version of installed Lazarus on the Help->About and in
> documentaton.
I'm starting to thing the same th
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort :
>
> The problem is that while this works for commercial projects (young/idiotic
> users pay too), it doesn't work for open source projects.
Why? Can you supply examples where simple versioning doesn't work in
open source projects? Of if I miss understood you can you
2009/11/29 zeljko :
> ... but our problems still exists - gtk2 is
> blocking us at the moment.If we wait gtk2 fixes over small contributions,
And that is a classic case of "creeping requirements" that keep
postponing projects.
GTK2 wasn't even a v1.0 item, it was post-v1. But somewhere along the
I was using synchronize, but as I figured out today, I was using it
incorrectly. With a bit of fiddling today I managed to get it working; both
with the progress bar updating and the GUI not hanging. Thanks.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:32 AM, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:05:26
Florian Klaempfl pisze:
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
Do you really think we should care about people looking at version
numbers? Wine took years to get 1.0 and people used it, one of the
greatest emulators (qemu) is still at 0.11 having a quality Borland had
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
>
> I meant, code working with lazarus 1.0.0 must be compilable at least by
> all 1.0.x releases.
Isn't this already done with the "fixes" branches vs Trunk branch? So
again, the developers wouldn't have to change their working style at
all.
--
Regards,
- Graeme
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
>
> Well, not really, you're not allowed anymore to break old code to fix a
> wrong design ;)
That's the typical Microsoft (or closed source) development style I do
not agree with. If a design is wrong, fix it - don't band-aid it and
compromise another design. That's
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders :
As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users.
And as I have stated over and over. With new users come new
contributors. I know I started as a user with no intention of
contributing. But after a while I saw Lazarus and part
zeljko wrote:
lazarus have x1000 times more users, but our problems still exists - gtk2 is
blocking us at the moment.If we wait gtk2 fixes over small contributions,
then 1.0 can be reached in the time of gtk 5.0 :)
I suspect that LCL widget set implementations might benerfit from some
sor
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 16:10, zeljko wrote:
> Well, ratio is pretty high for ide, win32, some smaller for carbon,qt, but for
> gtk2 there's no ratio :)
Isn't it infinite ? N : 0 = oo ;-)
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.or
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 09:40:50AM -0500, Michael Joyner ?? wrote:
> >
> It would also eliminate any confusion as what version of toolset you are
> using. If it wasn't for that Linux Journal magazine getting me to
> actually try the IDE combined with a very cheap Delphi 4 book, I
> wouldn
On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:22, Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ wrote:
> zeljko wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:13, Michael Fuchs wrote:
> >> Vincent Snijders schrieb:
> >>> As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users. There are
> >>> more gtk2 issues than win32 issues, so we need to fo
On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:21, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> 2009/11/29 zeljko :
> > You misunderstood my point.
>
> My apologies then. :)
>
> > As already Vincent pointed: at the moment we need developers not users.
>
> A developer is a user. So if you don't want users, you ain't going to
> have d
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
I meant, code working with lazarus 1.0.0 must be compilable at least by
all 1.0.x releases.
Well, I see no problems. If we want to break something then we just
release 2.0 :)
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin.
--
___
Lazarus mailing
Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ schrieb:
> Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>> Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> Bumping up the version number will not affect how current Lazarus
>>> developers work. They will continue as normal.
>>>
>>
>> Well, not really, you're not allowed anymore to break old code to fix
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
Bumping up the version number will not affect how current Lazarus
developers work. They will continue as normal.
Well, not really, you're not allowed anymore to break old code to fix a
wrong design ;)
I thought that's what versi
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> Bumping up the version number will not affect how current Lazarus
> developers work. They will continue as normal.
Well, not really, you're not allowed anymore to break old code to fix a
wrong design ;)
--
___
Lazarus mail
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> 2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders :
>> As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users.
>
>
> And as I have stated over and over. With new users come new
> contributors. I know I started as a user with no intention of
> contributing. But after a while I saw Lazar
2009/11/29 Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ :
> When I see '0.9.XXX', my first
> thought is, "YOUNG" project, not mature yet.
Just to second that. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning:
In contrast to this, the free-software community tends to use version
1.0 as a major milestone, indicating tha
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort :
At least it will put this kind of nonsensical discussions to rest
(which is exactly why Patrick did this)
That does actually make sense.
So maybe Lazarus should start releasing using "year.revision"
eg:
Next release: Lazarus
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort :
>
> At least it will put this kind of nonsensical discussions to rest
> (which is exactly why Patrick did this)
That does actually make sense.
So maybe Lazarus should start releasing using "year.revision"
eg:
Next release: Lazarus 2010
If another release in the
Marco van de Voort wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:38:06PM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort :
The serious users will consider the current restrained version policy as
Personally, if we are going to approach this marketing driven, I'm more in
fav
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 03:24:31PM +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> - determine direct competitors
> - determine their version numbers.
> - versionnumer:=max(other versionnumbers)+1
>
> its a clear policy (a new release always has the major release number of the
> competition +1), and a suffix i
2009/11/29 zeljko :
> Sure, but more users in last few months didn't attract single developer to sit
> with gtk2 and fix issues :), so how many new users we need to attract 1
> developer to maintain gtk2 ? :)
Maybe that's because GTK2 is crappy! :-) Maybe that's why LCL-Qt was
started, that's may
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:38:06PM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> 2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort :
> >
> > The serious users will consider the current restrained version policy as
> > more serious and see through a cheap spin.
>
> That would be my view as well. Unfortunately we are then in the
>
zeljko wrote:
On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:13, Michael Fuchs wrote:
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users. There are
more gtk2 issues than win32 issues, so we need to focus our martekting
(if any) more to the potential gtk2 developers (on
2009/11/29 zeljko :
>
> You misunderstood my point.
My apologies then. :)
>
> As already Vincent pointed: at the moment we need developers not users.
A developer is a user. So if you don't want users, you ain't going to
have developers. With more users comes a better chance of getting
developers
On Sunday 29 November 2009 15:13, Michael Fuchs wrote:
> Vincent Snijders schrieb:
> > As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users. There are
> > more gtk2 issues than win32 issues, so we need to focus our martekting
> > (if any) more to the potential gtk2 developers (on linux) than
Michael Fuchs wrote:
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users. There are
More users will also attract more developers.
"Grow Your Own" ... is one approach, the more users you have, the more
Object Pascal programmers you have, the larger t
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders :
>
> As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users.
And as I have stated over and over. With new users come new
contributors. I know I started as a user with no intention of
contributing. But after a while I saw Lazarus and parts of FPC not
that scary and
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
> As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users. There are
> more gtk2 issues than win32 issues, so we need to focus our martekting
> (if any) more to the potential gtk2 developers (on linux) than on the
> potential win32 developers.
More users will also attr
2009/11/29 Martin :
>
> But if V1 = rubish, then Lazarus shouldn't go V1 ?
Answer me this Do you consider the current Lazarus as rubbish?
My answer is definitely NO, hence the reason I don't see a problem
with making the next release v1.
Lazarus development will continue as normal for us th
Juha Manninen wrote:
On sunnuntai, 29. marraskuuta 2009 15:11:24 Vincent Snijders wrote:
As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users. There are
more gtk2 issues than win32 issues, so we need to focus our martekting
(if any) more to the potential gtk2 developers (on linux) than
On sunnuntai, 29. marraskuuta 2009 15:11:24 Vincent Snijders wrote:
> As Florian noted, Lazarus needs developers more than users. There are
> more gtk2 issues than win32 issues, so we need to focus our martekting
> (if any) more to the potential gtk2 developers (on linux) than on the
> potential wi
2009/11/29 Juha Manninen :
>
> I see KDE 4.0 as a warning example of claiming the SW as "ready" too early.
> KDE 4.2 should have been 4.0.
Well that applies to KDE only. Lazarus is NOT in that situation.
Lazarus has been for the last 7+ years and at v0.9.x. It sure as hell
isn't as "new" as KDE v
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:36, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> 2009/11/29 zeljko :
> > case 0.9.28 (or 1.0) there must be full compatibility all the time
> > (0.9.28.XX - or 1.0XX) and for such thing we need more developers who
>
> This is where I prefer the Linux philosophy compared to Windows.
> Wi
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
>
> Being honest, should an OSS project care about users looking at version
> numbers? The most important thing for an OSS project are contributors,
And by preventing users form experimenting with FPC & Lazarus, to see
if it fits there needs, you are reducing the chan
2009/11/29 zeljko :
> case 0.9.28 (or 1.0) there must be full compatibility all the time
> (0.9.28.XX - or 1.0XX) and for such thing we need more developers who
This is where I prefer the Linux philosophy compared to Windows.
Windows takes compatibly to the extreme and compromise better and
cleane
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort :
The serious users will consider the current restrained version policy as
more serious and see through a cheap spin.
That would be my view as well. Unfortunately we are then in the
minority. Version numbers on Windows etc. and been in p
Florian Klaempfl schreef:
It's rather easy to push this ;) Commit bug reports for 1.0 marked bugs ;)
I assume you mean patches for bug marked for 1.0.
Vincent
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.fre
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:46:21 +
Martin wrote:
> Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> > 2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort :
> >
> >> The serious users will consider the current restrained version policy as
> >> more serious and see through a cheap spin.
> >>
> >
> > That would be my view as well. Unf
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort :
The serious users will consider the current restrained version policy as
more serious and see through a cheap spin.
That would be my view as well. Unfortunately we are then in the
minority. Version numbers on Windows etc. and bee
2009/11/29 Hans-Peter Diettrich :
>
> if I had been allowed to erased all the flaws of that crappy Windows
> centric model...
I don't know your docking code, but I know how you feel. It's reasons
like that why I work on fpGUI Toolkit. Fresh toolkit, fresh start, no
restrictions. But I know this do
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort :
>
> The serious users will consider the current restrained version policy as
> more serious and see through a cheap spin.
That would be my view as well. Unfortunately we are then in the
minority. Version numbers on Windows etc. and been in popularity for
some time.
On sunnuntai, 29. marraskuuta 2009 12:38:44 Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> We switched all our simulation machines at work from kde to gnome.
> Admitted, one reason is also that KDE4 looks terrible ugly :)
Oh, now is time to switch back then. KDE 4.3.x looks good again. :-)
I see KDE 4.0 as a warning
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
>> A version 1.0 milestone is crucial and much more then a given feature
>> set and minimized bug list.
>
> It's rather easy to push this ;) Commit bug reports for 1.0 marked bugs ;)
>
That would be sneaky, but clever! :-)
--
Regards,
- Graeme -
__
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> 2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
>> Do you really think we should care about people looking at version
>> numbers? Wine took years to get 1.0 and people used it, one of the
>> greatest emulators (qemu) is still at 0.11 having a quality Borland had
>> selled as version "200
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> 2009/11/29 Paul Ishenin :
>> new features but we need to fix most of the bugs we have in the tracker. who
>> needs a component library with bugs?
>
> You do know Borland released Kylix v1, v2 and v3 with tons of bugs!
> :-) The difference between Kylix and Lazarus, is
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Do you really think we should care about people looking at version
numbers? Wine took years to get 1.0 and people used it, one of the
greatest emulators (qemu) is still at 0.11 having a quality borland had
selled as version "2007".
I think you should care about it if
+1
I couldn't say it better myself. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone is
this thinking.
--
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/
--
__
2009/11/29 Paul Ishenin :
> new features but we need to fix most of the bugs we have in the tracker. who
> needs a component library with bugs?
You do know Borland released Kylix v1, v2 and v3 with tons of bugs!
:-) The difference between Kylix and Lazarus, is that Lazarus still
has active develop
Tom Lisjac schrieb:
Personally, I'd like to see Lazarus and FPC start to move forward and
get the respect and larger following that they deserve... but with
it's history and stalled 1.0, I don't blame any noob, experienced
developer or business that makes an informed decision to avoid this
toolc
Paul Ishenin schrieb:
My list of things to be fixed for 1.0 is the next:
- docking. many parts of this features are in the experimental state
The experiments are restricted to bypassing the Delphi-inherited
problems. Where could we be today, almost one year after I started
working on dockin
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl :
>
> Do you really think we should care about people looking at version
> numbers? Wine took years to get 1.0 and people used it, one of the
> greatest emulators (qemu) is still at 0.11 having a quality Borland had
> selled as version "2007".
And who are they targetin
2009/11/29 Marc Weustink :
>
> Since we think it's not ready for 1.0.
> Period.
I know Lazarus is your guys project and we are simple users don't have
much say. But with that attitude, I think you guys are hurting Lazarus
image more. Companies and professional developers simply do not want
to try
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
>
> I think delaying v1 more, will hurt Lazarus reputation even further.
>
Do you really think we should care about people looking at version
numbers? Wine took years to get 1.0 and people used it, one of the
greatest emulators (qemu) is still at 0.11 having a quality
2009/11/28 Vincent Snijders :
>>
>> I see 398 bugs which targeted for 1.0 and not resolved or closed.
>> I am right?
>
> That is correct, but don't forget the 74 issues with target 0.9.30.
And by the time those are fixed, another 100 or so would be added to
0.9.32 or v1.0. You guys are never goin
2009/11/28 Vincent Snijders :
>
> Yes, Delphi has time based releases, Lazarus tries to make the release based
> on complete feature, without feeling a need to make 1.0, just because a
> couple of months (or years) have passed and a dead line is nearing.
It is years... We switched to FPC and Lazar
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:05:26 -0500
Matt Shaffer wrote:
> I was reading up on threads in FPC, and the wiki even mentioned them being
> used to prevent the GUI from locking up (which is what I wanted to do). I
> quickly stitched together the multithreaded example with my app (which is a
> simple im
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 09:14:52PM -0700, Tom Lisjac wrote:
> The problem I see is credibility... or "if we write a lot of code with
> Lazarus/FPC, will it be maintainable with the project in perpetual
> beta?".
Personally I think this discussion is funny, weeks before 2.4.0 comes out
and lazarus
On Sunday 29 November 2009 05:14, Tom Lisjac wrote:
> Businesses laugh in our general direction over the code breakage issue
> where a project investment using Lazarus/FPC may end up a QA and
> maintenance nightmare. This view is shared by many of my colleagues
> who can't understand why I'm still
Tom Lisjac schrieb:
> To compare, Linux is now running corporate
> datacenters around the world... and Lazarus is still in beta with very
> few public applications deployed.
The same might be applied to delphi too: it appears that there are few
public applications deployed.
>
> source level past
Hi,
here my comments about this:
Lazarus uses a "BugTracker"-driven release/version cycle.
So the people who have rights to priorize the bugs actually decide about this.
I think this is OK.
But to get closer to a version 1.0 the handling of the bug-reports should be
changed a little.
If I look
On Saturday 28 November 2009 21:44, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The TForm.BorderIcons property does not seem to have any effect in KDE when
> using the GTK2 widgetset.
>
> - Is this a known issue ?
> - Does it depend on the used WindowManager or is it a Widgetset specific
> issue ?
Yes,
Tom Lisjac wrote:
So what exactly is the Lazarus team afraid of in getting to v1.0?
Since we think it's not ready for 1.0.
Period.
...
The problem I see is credibility... or "if we write a lot of code with
Lazarus/FPC, will it be maintainable with the project in perpetual
beta?".
Tom Lisjac schreef:
The problem I see is credibility... or "if we write a lot of code with
Lazarus/FPC, will it be maintainable with the project in perpetual
beta?". Delphi was stable from release 2 and code I developed with it
in versions 2, 3, 4 and 5 continued to "just work" as I upgraded. Not
97 matches
Mail list logo
