On 18.06.2008, at 09:39, Anton Novikov wrote: >> 2) (...) When fltk2 gets stable, everybody will be using quantum >> computers with 3D golographic displays. (...)
Oh please! Granted, it took two years to go from a pretty stable 1.1.7 to a very stable 1.1.9, but that is mainly because we were limited to a handful of otherwise busy developers. What FLTK 2 needs to do is stop adding little features here and there and start fixing every known bug. I know it is painful. I have been there. Nobody likes to fix bugs when he could be implementing cool new features, especially if those bugs don't interfere with my own projects. But lets face it: every little new feature will cause at least four bug report and ten requests on how to make that feature even better. But unless all known bugs are fixed, a software will stay in beta (actually alpha, by definition). My suggestion would have been to write a (close-to-perfect) compatibility layer form FLTK1 to FLTK2, so that all F1 users can switch to F2 without losing anything. I have a prototype that supports derived classes and the full FL hierarchy with very few limitations, so even the most sophisticated FLTK1 hackers could move on with no changes to their source code. Unfortunatly, this will never ever fly unless F2 is as stable as F1. So if F2 has no feature stop and only occasional bug fixing, what are the other options? - Fix and emulate: the F2 team fixes F2, the F1 team creates a better emulation layer - F1 core, F2 API: make the FLTK1 API similar to FLTK2, but keep the F1 core and adapt F2 changes? - Megre by function: merge the libraries bottom up (basically your idea?) and hope that the combined code remains stable? - Merge by line: merge line by line in a Petri dish, creating the essence of F1 and F2, calling it F3 - Weave: merge line by line while keeping the sum of code functional - Kill one: abondon one of the two branches entirely - Kill both: or finally rename obne of the libraries and split into two independent projects I have been weighing all this back and forth, trying to think of the existing user bases first, but also how to attract new users (definatly not with a confusing versioning), and how to attract (and keep) core developers. > PS I didn't mean to offend anybody. Really. No offense taken. I am still trying to find the perfect solution. > PPS What about IRC? I am not the IRC kind of guy. I prefer news groups so that all communication is sorted and documented. There was an IRC channel open for a while, but I never managed to join it. I may try to listen in the next time around. Matthias ---- http://robowerk.com/ _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list fltk-dev@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
