Andrew Ross wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:26:39AM -0600, Geoffrey Furnish wrote:
>> Alan W. Irwin writes:
>> > So I think "the road to 6.0" is going to be a long process that will need
>> > lots of planning, implementation, and testing work, but that effort should
>> > be worthwhile if we
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:26:39AM -0600, Geoffrey Furnish wrote:
> Alan W. Irwin writes:
> > So I think "the road to 6.0" is going to be a long process that will need
> > lots of planning, implementation, and testing work, but that effort should
> > be worthwhile if we end up with just the idea
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:40:40PM +0100, Werner Smekal wrote:
> Hi Geoffrey,
>
> >
> > If a new/improved set of Plplot Tcl/Tk widgets were to come along,
> > which
> > worked only with Tcl/Tk 8.5+, what would people expect to happen
> > with the
> > older stuff that works with Tcl/Tk 8.4-?
>
Hi Geoffrey,
>
> If a new/improved set of Plplot Tcl/Tk widgets were to come along,
> which
> worked only with Tcl/Tk 8.5+, what would people expect to happen
> with the
> older stuff that works with Tcl/Tk 8.4-?
>
> If a new/improved set of PLplot Python widgets were to come along,
> which
Alan W. Irwin writes:
> So I think "the road to 6.0" is going to be a long process that will need
> lots of planning, implementation, and testing work, but that effort should
> be worthwhile if we end up with just the ideal API for 6.0 with the
> non-ideal component of our API completely remove
On 2009-11-19 09:37+0100 Werner Smekal wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I actually don't care about this number issues (it's ok for me if we
> go to PLplot 5.146), but wouldn't it be time to step to 6.0 any time
> soon? This time we could really branch PLplot and e.g. remove all
> drivers/code which are(is u
