On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Baruch Even wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> > Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > | It might be a good idea to release soon a lyx-1.1.6-beta1 in order to do
> > | the testing by those who will need to use the code. It would be a bad idea
> > | to release so much new code without having some brave users test it
> > | beforehand,
> >
> > We always have at lest three prereleases if tere have been a lot of
> > changes, so the questions if we should push forward and go direcly
> > for the 1.2.0 goal, or stop up a bit and release 1.1.6pre1 (and we
> > have work that is needed for that too...), if we don't release a
> > 1.1.6pre we enable the NEW_TABULAR and NEW_INSETS wait a bit, fix
> > stuff implement some, and release a 1.2.0pre1
My vote: 1.1.6 then 1.2.0
We have gone long enough without a prerelease. If we switch to the
comparatively untested NEW_[EVERYTHING] stuff¹ we are likely to slow down
development excessively I feel. At least with the mostly old stuff in
place we know a lot of it is "stable". Then 1.1.6 can be completed and we
can do a proper job of 1.2.0. Fixing all the other intermediate problems
as we go. So we end up doing all the same work but at least get more
people using at least one of the releases (1.1.6).
¹ Lars issued a challenge, I published it in LDN and almost none responded.
> I think that taking a break now will be a good idea, we could then try to
> aim for better support for GUII in 1.2.0, as far as I looked into it, it
> will require quite a bit of work to get LyX fully GUII, quite a bit of its
> internals are dependent on X windows calls.
There's GUII and SI (System Independence). X is used on all the Unix
platforms and keeps us going on Windows and OS/2. Lets get the GUI
independent of toolkits first (but still dependent on X) and then get
independent of X. That doesn't mean we should ignore SI issues just that
we concentrate on sweeping the floor [removing xforms/toolkit code
from the core] before we polish it [make it shine ;-)].
For 1.2.0 I'd be happy to have most of the dialogs in all three toolkit
ports. We don't need all of them but it would certainly make a nice
milestone for 1.2.0 to be toolkit agnostic. Then 1.x.0 (x >=3; probably
x>>3) can be the SI or XI target.
These thoughts are also due to the number of people who will still be
thinking in Linux-kernel numbering instead of just-another-release
numbering.
[imlib dependency]
I'd rather do without inline rendering until later and have you work on
all those other things you listed.
Allan. (ARRae)
