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 wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > This release is generally solid, with the exception of the p
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
---
[ ] +1 I support this release
[ ] +0
[X] -0
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
I'm going to abstain from this vote.
This release is generally solid, with the exception of the pswing
package. Since issue 163 has been reopened, and since I've
investigated f
---
[ ] +1 I support this release
[ ] +0
[X] -0
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
I'm going to abstain from this vote.
This release is generally solid, with the exception of the pswing
package. Since issue 163 has been reopened, and since I've
investigated f
Doh. Make that "oppose 1.3-rc3", not "1.3-rc4".
Chris
On Feb 26, 7:16 pm, "cmal...@pixelzoom.com"
wrote:
> Well, apparently we (PhET) didn't have as much consensus as I thought.
> I should have waited to comment until we had more internal discussion.
>
> The new feeling is that we rely heavily o
Well, apparently we (PhET) didn't have as much consensus as I thought.
I should have waited to comment until we had more internal discussion.
The new feeling is that we rely heavily on PSwing, and 163 is
therefore pretty important. We've seen it cause serious problems in
at least one application,
My client (PhET) uses PSwing quite heavily.
But I'm not going to -1 in order to get the 163 fix, for 3 reasons:
(1) The consensus within PhET is that we're comfortable with patching
our 1.3 copy to resolve 163.
(2) Imho PSwing needs an internal overhaul, to bring the code up to
the standards of Pic
---
[X] +1 I support this release
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
On Feb 17, 11:44 pm, Michael Heuer wrote:
> This is a vote for releasing Piccolo2D.Java 1.3 based on release
> candidate 3 (version 1.3-rc3). Since release candidate 2 the fix
>
I'm re-voting, based on our discussion in issue 161.
---
[ ] +1 I support this release
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ X] -1 I oppose this release because (as described in issue 161)
full bounds behavior was changed by fixing issue 155.
--
Piccolo2D Developers Group: http://groups
Chris wrote:
> All 1.3-rc1 issues that I reported have been resolved. Many thanks!
>
> What is the timeline for 1.3-rc2, and are there any other issues still
> pending that must be resolved?
If no new issues are reported this week, I should be able to have
1.3-rc2 ready by Friday.
Looking ahead
All 1.3-rc1 issues that I reported have been resolved. Many thanks!
What is the timeline for 1.3-rc2, and are there any other issues still
pending that must be resolved?
Chris
On Feb 1, 4:09 pm, "cmal...@pixelzoom.com"
wrote:
> See issue 160 for the "endless series of events" issue.
>
> All p
See issue 160 for the "endless series of events" issue.
All problems we've identified are now in the issues database.
158 and 159 are resolved. 160 is open.
Chris
On Feb 1, 11:03 am, "cmal...@pixelzoom.com"
wrote:
> An update on where we're at with the PSwing issues...
>
> Issue 158 was reso
An update on where we're at with the PSwing issues...
Issue 158 was resolved by Allain last week, and fixed a couple of our
problems.
Issue 159 was opened a few minutes ago, and is related to PSwing
transform/picking problems.
I am still investigating one additional issue, where a PSwing
Compone
So far, I have tested 3 of my Piccolo applications, and found only 1
problem in one of the 3 applications. My problem is exhibited with the
release candidate 1.3 rc1, but not with our previously used snapshot
r390 (circa 9/9/2008), and it also appears to be related to PSwing; a
panel with 2 ra
> ---
> [ ] +1 I support this release
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -0
> [X] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
PSwing appears to have some new problems, and PhET (my client) relies
heavily on PSwing. Specifically:
(1) Visibility issues; there are nodes that should be visib
15 matches
Mail list logo
