Yuri wrote:
>> Greg Ercolano wrote:
>>
>> I'm not absolutely sure about it, but I would prefer a different branch for
>> starting the FLA upgrade. ...
>>
>> I can also see the problem if this approach takes a longer time to merge the
>> changes later, but I think that this would be much better because it wouldn't
>> block development (and release !) of FLTK 1.3.0.
>>
>> What I would do:
>>
>> Step 1: create a development branch, e.g. branch-1.3-fla
>> ...
>
> I think it will be better plane it for fltk-1.4
>
> IMHO we need to finish fltk-1.3.0 as quick as possible. the main thing of 1.3
> must be UTF-8 support.
> I don't say that idea of FLA is bad. but we don't have fla now and need utf.
Right -- agreed -- 1.3 needs to start locking down,
as there's still some work to do to get that out.
Getting STR#2115 solved is a biggie for me.. text sizes and
"digital drit" in text editors is bad.
My patch should work as a temp fix, but I think matt prefers
to really solve the problem, as we're not sure currently why
the font size (in pixels) FLTK requests is not really the actual
font size we see on screen.
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
