Yes, if 163 were fixed, that would change my vote to +1. 163 is the only know problem with pswing. The other gripes I have with it are internals, and that can certainly wait.
On Mar 9, 9:42 am, Michael Heuer <heue...@gmail.com> wrote: > Chris wrote: > > This release is generally solid, with the exception of the pswing > > package. Since issue 163 has been reopened, and since I've > > investigated further, I think that pswing has some new problems that > > weren't in 1.2 (issue 163 being an example). I can't +1 the release, > > since my client (PhET) relies heavily on pswing. But I can't -1 the > > release because I think that fixing pswing and bringing it up to the > > same standards as the reset of Piccolo2D is going to take considerable > > time, and I hate to see 1.3 delayed any longer. > > If issue 163 were fixed, would that change your vote to +1? I > wouldn't mind waiting 1.3 until that were the case. > > > If anyone else feels strongly about pswing, then my lack of confidence > > in its current state may influence your vote. Otherwise, I think PhET > > should take the lead in fixing & improving whatever version of pswing > > ships with 1.3. PhET uses it heavily, in some complex situations, and > > contributed it in (more or less) its current state. > > I would prefer to see PhET using a proper Piccolo2D release rather > than maintaining a private fork, let us know what it will take to make > that happen. > > michael -- Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups.google.com/group/piccolo2d-dev?hl=en
