From: Fay J. F C. AAC/W. <joh...@eg...> - 2003-11-25 14:02:03
|
I don't think we've fixed Aleksandar Donev's menu problem yet. (Aleksandar, have we? If not, what do we need to do to fix it? I realize I've asked you this twice before but I need to ask yet again. Sorry about that.) If we do go for a new version, it should be "2.2.0" instead of "2.1.0". Even numbers denote stable releases; odd numbers denote working, unstable ones. (In fact, when I changed the version definitions in the CVS file I should probably have changed it to "2.1.0" instead of "2.0.2".) John F. Fay joh...@eg... -----Original Message----- From: Richard Rauch [mailto:sf...@ol...] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:23 PM To: fre...@li... Subject: [Freeglut-developer] Stuff from John. 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/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ Freeglut-developer mailing list Fre...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freeglut-developer |
From: Nigel S. a. F. S. <ni...@ni...> - 2003-11-25 14:37:03
|
> I don't think we've fixed Aleksandar Donev's menu problem yet. (Aleksandar, > have we? I'm seeing some strangeness on Windows with menus - once a submenu item is selected, it can't be made visible again until a _different_ submenu has been selected. Can't say I noticed when this crept in... (And, via anon CVS a bit behind the times) Nigel |
From: Richard R. <sf...@ol...> - 2003-11-25 14:55:25
|
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 01:38:03AM +1100, Nigel Stewart and Fiona Smith wrote: > >I don't think we've fixed Aleksandar Donev's menu problem yet. > >(Aleksandar, > >have we? > > I'm seeing some strangeness on Windows with menus - > once a submenu item is selected, it can't be made > visible again until a _different_ submenu has been > selected. Yow. I'm seeing something really bizarre with my menus in another program, now. It looks similar to some stuff that I saw when I first was converting the callbacks to use an array. The menus are physically pushed to the wrong spot and mangled. This is serious breakage. I can't remember what fixed it before; it may have been a subtle issue about setting the current window (or failing to set it). You're not seeing this with the tarball from yesterday evening (midnight GMT?), I suppose. So this is possibly something introduced last night or this morning. -- "I probably don't know what I'm talking about." http://www.olib.org/~rkr/ |
From: Richard R. <sf...@ol...> - 2003-11-25 14:44:11
|
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 08:01:51AM -0600, Fay John F Contr AAC/WMG wrote: > I don't think we've fixed Aleksandar Donev's menu problem yet. (Aleksandar, > have we? If not, what do we need to do to fix it? I realize I've asked you > this twice before but I need to ask yet again. Sorry about that.) I've also got an outstanding menu issue that's irking me. I just haven't had time to get to it. Aleksander also has a valid concern with how iconized/minimized/hidden windows are handled, if I recall correctly. > If we do go for a new version, it should be "2.2.0" instead of "2.1.0". > Even numbers denote stable releases; odd numbers denote working, unstable Okay. -- "I probably don't know what I'm talking about." http://www.olib.org/~rkr/ |