Re: [piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-03-09 Thread Michael Heuer
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.

   michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-03-09 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
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.

    michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-03-08 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
---
[ ] +1  I support this release
[ ] +0
[X] -0
[ ] -1  I oppose this release because...


I'm going to abstain from this vote.

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 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.

On Mar 2, 8:57 pm, Michael Heuer heue...@gmail.com wrote:
 This is a vote for releasing Piccolo2D.Java 1.3 based on release
 candidate 4 (version 1.3-rc4).  Since release candidate 3 new issues
 163 and 165 have been fixed and verified.

 1.3-rc4 is available from the downloads page:

 http://code.google.com/p/piccolo2d/downloads/list?can=2q=1.3-rc4

 ---
 [ ] +1  I support this release
 [ ] +0
 [ ] -0
 [ ] -1  I oppose this release because...
 

 Votes from Piccolo2D project committers are binding, however votes
 from other contributors and users are welcomed.  The vote must receive
 at least three +1 binding votes and no -1 binding votes.

 Vote will close at 12:00 GMT Tuesday 09 March 2010.

 On behalf of the Piccolo2D developers,

    michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-03-08 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
---
[ ] +1  I support this release
[ ] +0
[X] -0
[ ] -1  I oppose this release because...


I'm going to abstain from this vote.

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 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.

On Mar 2, 8:57 pm, Michael Heuer heue...@gmail.com wrote:
 This is a vote for releasing Piccolo2D.Java 1.3 based on release
 candidate 4 (version 1.3-rc4).  Since release candidate 3 new issues
 163 and 165 have been fixed and verified.

 1.3-rc4 is available from the downloads page:

 http://code.google.com/p/piccolo2d/downloads/list?can=2q=1.3-rc4

 ---
 [ ] +1  I support this release
 [ ] +0
 [ ] -0
 [ ] -1  I oppose this release because...
 

 Votes from Piccolo2D project committers are binding, however votes
 from other contributors and users are welcomed.  The vote must receive
 at least three +1 binding votes and no -1 binding votes.

 Vote will close at 12:00 GMT Tuesday 09 March 2010.

 On behalf of the Piccolo2D developers,

    michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-02-26 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
My client (PhET) uses PSwing quite heavily.
But I'm not going to -1 in order to get the 163 fix, for 3 reasons:
(1) The consensus within PhET is that we're comfortable with patching
our 1.3 copy to resolve 163.
(2) Imho PSwing needs an internal overhaul, to bring the code up to
the standards of Piccolo. Poor name choices is my biggest beef,
luckily with private stuff.
(3) There are additional PSwing issues that need to be resolved.  We
have not yet reported these, but are tracking them internally.  The
big 2 issues are focus traversal and memory leaks when PSwings are
removed from the scenegraph.

Chris


On Feb 26, 4:16 pm, Michael Heuer heue...@gmail.com wrote:
 Michael Heuer wrote:
  Vote will close at 12:00 GMT Friday 26 February 2010.

 I would like to extend to vote deadline until Monday 01 March 2010 to
 allow for feedback on recently fixed issues 163 and 165.

 The current vote would pass as it stands and the fixes for those
 issues would not be released until a later version.

    michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-02-26 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
Well, apparently we (PhET) didn't have as much consensus as I thought.
I should have waited to comment until we had more internal discussion.

The new feeling is that we rely heavily on PSwing, and 163 is
therefore pretty important.  We've seen it cause serious problems in
at least one application, and a quick review of code shows that there
are other places where we're surprised it hasn't been a problem (and
maybe it is a problem in other languages, since our applications are
localized for  40 locales.)   Since a fix has been verified, it makes
sense to get it into 1.3, so we don't have to immediately diverge from
1.3.   Our internal patches should be for fixing problems found
*after* 1.3 is released, not before.  And we shouldn't count on 163
getting into a 1.3.x release, because we don't know when/if that will
happen.

So I'm going to change my vote (on behalf of PhET) to oppose 1.3-
rc4.   Here it is:

---
[ ] +1  I support this release
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[X] -1  I oppose this release because of issue 163.



On Feb 26, 4:50 pm, cmal...@pixelzoom.com cmal...@pixelzoom.com
wrote:
 My client (PhET) uses PSwing quite heavily.
 But I'm not going to -1 in order to get the 163 fix, for 3 reasons:
 (1) The consensus within PhET is that we're comfortable with patching
 our 1.3 copy to resolve 163.
 (2) Imho PSwing needs an internal overhaul, to bring the code up to
 the standards of Piccolo. Poor name choices is my biggest beef,
 luckily with private stuff.
 (3) There are additional PSwing issues that need to be resolved.  We
 have not yet reported these, but are tracking them internally.  The
 big 2 issues are focus traversal and memory leaks when PSwings are
 removed from the scenegraph.

 Chris

 On Feb 26, 4:16 pm, Michael Heuer heue...@gmail.com wrote:

  Michael Heuer wrote:
   Vote will close at 12:00 GMT Friday 26 February 2010.

  I would like to extend to vote deadline until Monday 01 March 2010 to
  allow for feedback on recently fixed issues 163 and 165.

  The current vote would pass as it stands and the fixes for those
  issues would not be released until a later version.

     michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-02-26 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
Doh. Make that oppose 1.3-rc3, not 1.3-rc4.

Chris

On Feb 26, 7:16 pm, cmal...@pixelzoom.com cmal...@pixelzoom.com
wrote:
 Well, apparently we (PhET) didn't have as much consensus as I thought.
 I should have waited to comment until we had more internal discussion.

 The new feeling is that we rely heavily on PSwing, and 163 is
 therefore pretty important.  We've seen it cause serious problems in
 at least one application, and a quick review of code shows that there
 are other places where we're surprised it hasn't been a problem (and
 maybe it is a problem in other languages, since our applications are
 localized for  40 locales.)   Since a fix has been verified, it makes
 sense to get it into 1.3, so we don't have to immediately diverge from
 1.3.   Our internal patches should be for fixing problems found
 *after* 1.3 is released, not before.  And we shouldn't count on 163
 getting into a 1.3.x release, because we don't know when/if that will
 happen.

 So I'm going to change my vote (on behalf of PhET) to oppose 1.3-
 rc4.   Here it is:

 ---
 [ ] +1  I support this release
 [ ] +0
 [ ] -0
 [X] -1  I oppose this release because of issue 163.
 

 On Feb 26, 4:50 pm, cmal...@pixelzoom.com cmal...@pixelzoom.com
 wrote:

  My client (PhET) uses PSwing quite heavily.
  But I'm not going to -1 in order to get the 163 fix, for 3 reasons:
  (1) The consensus within PhET is that we're comfortable with patching
  our 1.3 copy to resolve 163.
  (2) Imho PSwing needs an internal overhaul, to bring the code up to
  the standards of Piccolo. Poor name choices is my biggest beef,
  luckily with private stuff.
  (3) There are additional PSwing issues that need to be resolved.  We
  have not yet reported these, but are tracking them internally.  The
  big 2 issues are focus traversal and memory leaks when PSwings are
  removed from the scenegraph.

  Chris

  On Feb 26, 4:16 pm, Michael Heuer heue...@gmail.com wrote:

   Michael Heuer wrote:
Vote will close at 12:00 GMT Friday 26 February 2010.

   I would like to extend to vote deadline until Monday 01 March 2010 to
   allow for feedback on recently fixed issues 163 and 165.

   The current vote would pass as it stands and the fixes for those
   issues would not be released until a later version.

      michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-02-24 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
---
[X] +1  I support this release
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ ] -1  I oppose this release because...


On Feb 17, 11:44 pm, Michael Heuer heue...@gmail.com wrote:
 This is a vote for releasing Piccolo2D.Java 1.3 based on release
 candidate 3 (version 1.3-rc3).  Since release candidate 2 the fix
 for issue 155 was rolled back and a new issue 161 has been fixed
 and verified.

 1.3-rc3 is available from the downloads page:

 http://code.google.com/p/piccolo2d/downloads/list?can=2q=1.3-rc3

 ---
 [ ] +1  I support this release
 [ ] +0
 [ ] -0
 [ ] -1  I oppose this release because...
 

 Votes from Piccolo2D project committers are binding, however votes
 from other contributors and users are welcomed.  The vote must receive
 at least three +1 binding votes and no -1 binding votes.

 Vote will close at 12:00 GMT Friday 26 February 2010.

 On behalf of the Piccolo2D developers,

   michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-02-09 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
I'm re-voting, based on our discussion in issue 161.

---
[ ] +1  I support this release
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ X] -1  I oppose this release because (as described in issue 161)
full bounds behavior was changed by fixing issue 155.


-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3 failed

2010-02-03 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
All 1.3-rc1 issues that I reported have been resolved.  Many thanks!

What is the timeline for 1.3-rc2, and are there any other issues still
pending that must be resolved?

Chris


On Feb 1, 4:09 pm, cmal...@pixelzoom.com cmal...@pixelzoom.com
wrote:
 See issue 160 for the endless series of events issue.

 All problems we've identified are now in the issues database.

 158 and 159 are resolved.  160 is open.

 Chris

 On Feb 1, 11:03 am, cmal...@pixelzoom.com cmal...@pixelzoom.com
 wrote:

  An update on where we're at with the PSwing issues...

  Issue 158 was resolved by Allain last week, and fixed a couple of our
  problems.

  Issue 159 was opened a few minutes ago, and is related to PSwing
  transform/picking problems.

  I am still investigating one additional issue, where a PSwing
  Component is receiving an endless series of events that toggle its
  visibility on and off.  As soon as I isolate, I'll create an issue.

  That summarizes all of the problems we've encountered with 1.3-rc1.

  Chris

  On Jan 28, 12:29 pm, Michael Heuer heue...@gmail.com wrote:

   The following people voted on release 1.3rc1:

   Michael Heuer +1
   Allain Lalonde +1
   Chris Malley -1

   The vote failed since it did not receive at least three +1 binding
   votes and no -1 binding votes.

   New issues related to PSwing were discovered and are being addressed.
   Another release candidate (1.3rc2) will be created when these issues
   are closed and validated.

   On behalf of the Piccolo2D developers,

      michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


Re: [piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3 failed

2010-02-03 Thread Michael Heuer
Chris wrote:

 All 1.3-rc1 issues that I reported have been resolved.  Many thanks!

 What is the timeline for 1.3-rc2, and are there any other issues still
 pending that must be resolved?

If no new issues are reported this week, I should be able to have
1.3-rc2 ready by Friday.

Looking ahead to deploying the 1.3 release to the maven central
repository, it would be useful if we as developers could create a KEYS
file and discuss how we might be able to sign each others' keys.

http://www.apache.org/dev/openpgp.html
http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html

At a minimum, the release artifacts uploaded to maven central will
need to be signed by my key, acting as release manager.

   michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3 failed

2010-02-01 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
An update on where we're at with the PSwing issues...

Issue 158 was resolved by Allain last week, and fixed a couple of our
problems.

Issue 159 was opened a few minutes ago, and is related to PSwing
transform/picking problems.

I am still investigating one additional issue, where a PSwing
Component is receiving an endless series of events that toggle its
visibility on and off.  As soon as I isolate, I'll create an issue.

That summarizes all of the problems we've encountered with 1.3-rc1.

Chris

On Jan 28, 12:29 pm, Michael Heuer heue...@gmail.com wrote:
 The following people voted on release 1.3rc1:

 Michael Heuer +1
 Allain Lalonde +1
 Chris Malley -1

 The vote failed since it did not receive at least three +1 binding
 votes and no -1 binding votes.

 New issues related to PSwing were discovered and are being addressed.
 Another release candidate (1.3rc2) will be created when these issues
 are closed and validated.

 On behalf of the Piccolo2D developers,

    michael

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


[piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-01-26 Thread cmal...@pixelzoom.com
 ---
  [ ] +1  I support this release
  [ ] +0
  [ ] -0
 [X] -1  I oppose this release because...
 

PSwing appears to have some new problems, and PhET (my client) relies
heavily on PSwing.  Specifically:

(1) Visibility issues; there are nodes that should be visible and are
not, and vice-versa.
(2) Bounds issues; computing PSwing offsets for the purposes of layout
is resulting in additional whitespace.

I've observed problem (1) in 3 applications, problem (2) in 1
application, on both Windows and Mac platforms.  I've been trying to
isolate the problems in small test applications, but have been
unsuccessful so far.   I'm going to continue with that effort a little
longer, then have a look at PSwing changes.

-- 
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en


Re: [piccolo2d-dev] Re: Release Piccolo2D.Java 1.3

2010-01-26 Thread Samuel Robert Reid
So far, I have tested 3 of my Piccolo applications, and found only 1 
problem in one of the 3 applications.  My problem is exhibited with the 
release candidate 1.3 rc1, but not with our previously used snapshot 
r390 (circa 9/9/2008), and it also appears to be related to PSwing; a 
panel with 2 radio buttons is shown in the scene graph, but is 
noninteractive.  This problem by itself wouldn't suggest to me just 
cause for opposing rc1, unless there is no application-side fix (rather 
than piccolo or pswing fix) that can resolve or workaround the problem 
(I don't yet know whether there is an application-side fix).  However, 
based on cmalley's remarks below, I don't think this version should be 
promoted to a release, and perhaps we'll be able to isolate and resolve 
my issue as we are working on the related pswing issues.


Sam Reid

On 1/26/2010 2:35 PM, cmal...@pixelzoom.com wrote:

---
  [ ] +1  I support this release
  [ ] +0
  [ ] -0
[X] -1  I oppose this release because...

 

PSwing appears to have some new problems, and PhET (my client) relies
heavily on PSwing.  Specifically:

(1) Visibility issues; there are nodes that should be visible and are
not, and vice-versa.
(2) Bounds issues; computing PSwing offsets for the purposes of layout
is resulting in additional whitespace.

I've observed problem (1) in 3 applications, problem (2) in 1
application, on both Windows and Mac platforms.  I've been trying to
isolate the problems in small test applications, but have been
unsuccessful so far.   I'm going to continue with that effort a little
longer, then have a look at PSwing changes.

   


--
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en