From: Richard R. <sf...@ol...> - 2003-11-25 05:22:34
|
Earlier today (late morning?) John sent me some updated files. I'm sorry to say that it took me much longer than is acceptable to get his files into the repository. (Sorry.) But they are in there, now. On a note related to the commit log for the second set: NOT to start a release-cycle necessarily, but maybe we should think about a new release sometime? I'm in a lull. I don't know about others. We've added a few features, fixed a lot of bugs, and substantially normalized the freeglut coding style. What do people think of centering on a 2.1.0 release, say just before the holidays? It has these reasons to commend it, IMHO: * Lots of work has been done. * Things are slowing down at the moment. * *During* the holiday break, James will be off from school and others may have some kind of vacation time to work on freeglut. It might be a psychological multiplier to have a new/fresh version number. (*BUT* we don't want to be in a release cycle during the holidays. That is more likely to kill off productivity during what may be a good time to get things done. If we do this, it should come out soon. Maybe first or second week of December. The code is in pretty good shape, right now, relatively, so I do not think that we should need a long release cycle.) * It's a gift-giving season of the year for lots of people, so there's something to be said for making a release just before the holidays. (^& (Besides, people may have new toys to install freeglut on...) Thoughts? Has freeglut regressed in *any* way since 2.0.1? (I know that it's moved forward in a number of ways.) If not, we could make a 2.1.0 release "anytime" with the firm belief that people will be better using that than using 2.0.1. (Or 2.0.2, if you prefer.) Or are people in the midst of major changes that would be undermined by trying to mark a release, somehow? -- "I probably don't know what I'm talking about." http://www.olib.org/~rkr/ |
From: Nigel S. a. F. S. <ni...@ni...> - 2003-11-25 11:54:43
|
> NOT to start a release-cycle necessarily, but maybe we should think about > a new release sometime? I think there are plenty more fixes than introduced issues, a new release is a good idea. > What do people think of centering on a > 2.1.0 release, say just before the holidays? Good timeframe. > Or are people in the midst of major changes that would be undermined by > trying to mark a release, somehow? No, but I'd like to see the freeglut_geometry.c updates included: SourceForge RFE [ 814984 ] FreeGLUT should have a cylinder shape (Also includes updated sphere, cone and torus implementations) http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=814984&group_id=1032&atid=351032 Cheers, Nigel |
From: Richard R. <sf...@ol...> - 2003-11-25 12:52:56
|
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 10:55:46PM +1100, Nigel Stewart and Fiona Smith wrote: > > >NOT to start a release-cycle necessarily, but maybe we should think about > >a new release sometime? > > I think there are plenty more fixes than introduced issues, > a new release is a good idea. "Introduced issues" being new bug reports, or new bugs? (^& > >What do people think of centering on a > >2.1.0 release, say just before the holidays? > > Good timeframe. > > >Or are people in the midst of major changes that would be undermined by > >trying to mark a release, somehow? > > No, but I'd like to see the freeglut_geometry.c updates > included: > > SourceForge RFE [ 814984 ] FreeGLUT should have a cylinder shape > (Also includes updated sphere, cone and torus implementations) > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=814984&group_id=1032&atid=351032 A bit of a pain to grab off of the web-pages... If you can email the modified file(s) to me as MIME attaches, I'd be happy to check it/them in (on the theory that they compile cleanly on UNIX_X11...*grin*). I can grab from the web (or someone else may beat me to it), if need be, though. -- "I probably don't know what I'm talking about." http://www.olib.org/~rkr/ |
From: Nigel S. a. F. S. <ni...@ni...> - 2003-11-25 13:04:57
|
> "Introduced issues" being new bug reports, or new bugs? (^& For me, the current CVS FreeGLUT works well enough for most things I do, whereas the last release does not. There are still imperfections, but nothing as show stopping. >> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=814984&group_id=1032&atid=351032 > A bit of a pain to grab off of the web-pages... Is there an issue with right-click from the Download links at the "Attached Files:" section? It works fine for me in Win32/Mozilla1.5 > (on the theory that they compile cleanly on UNIX_X11...*grin*). Yes, I've used those on Linux/X11 as well as Win32... |