Albrecht Schlosser wrote... : Matthias Melcher wrote: : : > In case FLTK2 development has stopped completely and no developer : > is around anymore, I will propose the unthinkable. Yes, you read : > right, <shaky voice> ~~~the unthinkable~~~ </shaky voice>. : > : > Seriously though. If FLTK has stalled completely, I propose that: : : This should read: If FLTK 2 has stalled completely ... : : > 1: we officially end the 2.x line of code : : [snip] : We're currently suffering from the confusion, especially of new : users, and the fact that there is no clear line with the versioning. : : Making 3.0 the head of the subversion tree, the newest version, and : the only officially supported one, should make things much clearer. : : Albrecht
For a few months now, I've been in the process of taking over the FLTK Perl project which is historically based on fltk2. I've been dragging my feet on getting a somewhat complete release ready in part because of the lack of development compared to the 1.x branch. My main concern is interface stability; I don't want people to lose their work a few months or a year from now when 2.0 is "officially" dead and I'm obligated to move over to 1.3. I've followed this group for a while now so I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer the 2.x codebase. ...for no other reason than it's what I'm more familiar with. However, I know the split is doing the (read: my) dev process more harm than good so if there was a clear 3.x version I knew would be _singularly_ developed and cared for in the future, I would support it even if the API from 2.0 is tossed aside. -- Sanko Robinson [email protected] _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
