Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Vincent Snijders
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Martin
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?.

Re: [Lazarus] Bordericons property

2009-11-29 Thread zeljko
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, it's

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Florian Klaempfl
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 the

Re: [Lazarus] Multithreads for GUI use.

2009-11-29 Thread Mattias Gaertner
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:05:26 -0500 Matt Shaffer dazappa.m...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/28 Vincent Snijders vsnijd...@vodafonevast.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Florian Klaempfl
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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Marc Weustink m...@dommelstein.net: 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Paul Ishenin webpi...@mail.ru: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
+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/ --

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Florian Klaempfl
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: 2009/11/29 Paul Ishenin webpi...@mail.ru: 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Florian Klaempfl
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: 2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org: 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 -

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Hans-Peter Diettrich drdiettri...@aol.com: 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.

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Martin
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: 2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Mattias Gaertner
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:46:21 + Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote: Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: 2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl: The serious users will consider the current restrained version policy as more serious and see through a cheap spin. That would be my

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Vincent Snijders
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Vincent Snijders
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef: 2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 zeljko zel...@holobit.net: 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread zeljko
On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:36, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: 2009/11/29 zeljko zel...@holobit.net: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Juha Manninen juha.manni...@phnet.fi: 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

[Lazarus] QT bindings as defalt (was Release 1.0, part 2)

2009-11-29 Thread Juha Manninen
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 win32

Re: [Lazarus] QT bindings as defalt (was Release 1.0, part 2)

2009-11-29 Thread Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Martin laza...@mfriebe.de: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Michael Fuchs
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 attract

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders vsnijd...@vodafonevast.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2 (Grow Your Own ... is one approach)

2009-11-29 Thread Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread zeljko
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 on the

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 zeljko zel...@holobit.net: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Marco van de Voort
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:38:06PM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: 2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 zeljko zel...@holobit.net: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Marco van de Voort
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 in

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ
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 mar...@stack.nl: The serious users will consider the current restrained version policy as Personally, if we are going to approach this marketing driven,

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: 2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Aleksa Todorovic
2009/11/29 Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ mjoy...@vbservices.net: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Florian Klaempfl
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: 2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders vsnijd...@vodafonevast.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Florian Klaempfl
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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ
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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Florian Klaempfl
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 a wrong design ;)

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Paul Ishenin
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread zeljko
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 focus our

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Marco van de Voort
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't be

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Aleksa Todorovic
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 16:10, zeljko zel...@holobit.net 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Dariusz Mazur
Florian Klaempfl pisze: Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: 2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Multithreads for GUI use.

2009-11-29 Thread Matt Shaffer
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 nc-gaert...@netcologne.de wrote: On

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 zeljko zel...@holobit.net: ... 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Michael Joyner ᏩᏯ mjoy...@vbservices.net: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders vsnijd...@vodafonevast.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Vincent Snijders
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org: 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Vincent Snijders
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef: 2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org: 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

Re: [Lazarus] QT bindings as defalt (was Release 1.0, part 2)

2009-11-29 Thread Phil Hess
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 juha.manni...@phnet.fi

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Florian Klaempfl
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: 2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org: 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders vsnijd...@vodafonevast.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Vincent Snijders
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef: 2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders vsnijd...@vodafonevast.nl: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org: 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
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 --

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
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

[Lazarus] newbie trouble /w zeos

2009-11-29 Thread Chris Jennings
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.

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Aleksa Todorovic alexio...@gmail.com: 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/ --

Re: [Lazarus] What's the hold-up with Lazarus v1.0?

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Vincent Snijders vsnijd...@vodafonevast.nl: 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..

Re: [Lazarus] QT bindings as defalt (was Release 1.0, part 2)

2009-11-29 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
2009/11/29 Phil Hess macp...@fastermac.net: 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

Re: [Lazarus] QT bindings as defalt (was Release 1.0, part 2)

2009-11-29 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
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 --

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Hans-Peter Diettrich
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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Tom Lisjac
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl 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

[Lazarus] Carbon event loop question

2009-11-29 Thread Brad Campbell
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

Re: [Lazarus] Carbon event loop question

2009-11-29 Thread Brad Campbell
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...

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread Tom Lisjac
Hi Florian, On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org 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

Re: [Lazarus] Release 1.0, part 2

2009-11-29 Thread tcoq
Selon Thierry Andriamirado thierry.andriamir...@free.fr: 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.

Re: [Lazarus] QT bindings as defalt (was Release 1.0, part 2)

2009-11-29 Thread zeljko
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