> The problem was discussed in "general" branch of the forum. See "FLTK version > disorientation" thread. > Also take a look here http://www.fltk.org/newsgroups.php?gfltk.general+v:24912 So what? The thread was like: - Why are you developing fltk1? fltk2's better! - fltk2 is unstable, so we'll keep adding cool features like utf8
Matthias's article is pretty reasonable, but he wrote it in February, and the development process hasn't changed much - some people bring fltk2 features into fltk1, and some try to get fltk2 more stable and add new features to it. That is *not* reasonable. My point is getting both development teams working on the same codebase *now*. fltk1 gets: - some new features. I'm not sure about utf8, but I suppose getting fltk1 working on the top of utf8-enabled fltk-base will already do the thing(it's for example, I don't know actually) fltk2 gets: - stability and much bigger development team(to its core, at least). My roadmap proposal(jokish) 1. Getting abstraction layers one-by-one to fltk-base. 2. Getting everything we can to fltk-base. 3. Merge fltk-base and fltk2 to fltk3, and continue to maintain fltk1-style wrappers for compatibility. If I seem to be too much complaining and too little developing - 1) I now work on the fltk2-based project, so I have little time. 2) If fltk1 and fltk2 don't merge it's pointless. When fltk2 gets stable, everybody will be using quantum computers with 3D golographic displays. If they start to merge - I'll try to help as I can. PS I didn't mean to offend anybody. Really. PPS What about IRC? _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list fltk-dev@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
