From: Koblinger E. <eg...@uh...> - 2003-04-24 19:45:22
|
Hi! It seems to me that initial active development is kind of stalled these days... I guess everyone found more interesting things to do in life :-)) As far as I remember joe's history, 2.9.5 was nearly nothing more that 2.8 plus the fixes collected from different distributions. Then 2.9.6 and 2.9.7 introduced major changes and major bugs as well, for example word wrapping had serious bugs. I believe both of them were worse than 2.9.5. 2.9.8pre1 fixed these bugs, and in my opinion this is the best official joe version so far. Even though 2.9.8pre1 is nearly one and a half years old, and is much better than 2.9.7, many distributions (e.g. Red Hat, Mandrake) haven't yet upgraded, most likely because of its pre version number. So even if no further development is going on in the near future, I think that 2.9.8pre1 should be released as 2.9.8 (even if really nothing changes except for the version number) to encourage distribution developer to upgrade. I know that many new features are planned for 3.0. But keep in mind that version number after 2.9.9 doesn't have to be 3.0, you can call it 2.9.10 or 2.10.0 and so on... cheers, Egmont |
From: Vitezslav S. <sa...@ma...> - 2003-04-25 05:13:37
|
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:45:18PM +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote: > Hi! > > It seems to me that initial active development is kind of stalled these > days... I guess everyone found more interesting things to do in life :-)) Agreed, maintaining joe is not the work I am paid for ;-((( > As far as I remember joe's history, 2.9.5 was nearly nothing more that 2.8 > plus the fixes collected from different distributions. Then 2.9.6 and > 2.9.7 introduced major changes and major bugs as well, for example word > wrapping had serious bugs. I believe both of them were worse than 2.9.5. > 2.9.8pre1 fixed these bugs, and in my opinion this is the best official > joe version so far. Did you try the current CVS? There are a lot of changes in there. > Even though 2.9.8pre1 is nearly one and a half years old, and is much > better than 2.9.7, many distributions (e.g. Red Hat, Mandrake) haven't yet > upgraded, most likely because of its pre version number. > > So even if no further development is going on in the near future, I think > that 2.9.8pre1 should be released as 2.9.8 (even if really nothing changes > except for the version number) to encourage distribution developer to > upgrade. Some time ago I thought of releasing 2.9.8-pre2 at least, but it seems that releasing 2.9.8 would be a good move. > I know that many new features are planned for 3.0. But keep in mind that > version number after 2.9.9 doesn't have to be 3.0, you can call it 2.9.10 > or 2.10.0 and so on... As Marek wrote he plans to rewrite joe from the ground. But since that mail there was no other reaction from him. I believe he still has plans in his head but his spare time on university is full of other things. Cheers, Vita |
From: Koblinger E. <eg...@uh...> - 2003-04-25 08:03:52
|
> Did you try the current CVS? There are a lot of changes in there. Haven't yet, but I'll try it soon. Thx. -- Egmont |
From: Marek G. <xg...@in...> - 2003-04-25 12:01:56
|
Hi, On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Vitezslav Samel wrote: > Did you try the current CVS? There are a lot of changes in there. > > > Even though 2.9.8pre1 is nearly one and a half years old, and is much > > better than 2.9.7, many distributions (e.g. Red Hat, Mandrake) haven't yet > > upgraded, most likely because of its pre version number. > > > > So even if no further development is going on in the near future, I think > > that 2.9.8pre1 should be released as 2.9.8 (even if really nothing changes > > except for the version number) to encourage distribution developer to > > upgrade. > > Some time ago I thought of releasing 2.9.8-pre2 at least, but it seems > that releasing 2.9.8 would be a good move. There are at least two minor patches which I would like to see in 2.9.8. I believe that in week v2.9.8 should be released (with or without these patches). > > I know that many new features are planned for 3.0. But keep in mind that > > version number after 2.9.9 doesn't have to be 3.0, you can call it 2.9.10 > > or 2.10.0 and so on... > > As Marek wrote he plans to rewrite joe from the ground. But since that > mail there was no other reaction from him. I believe he still has plans in > his head but his spare time on university is full of other things. Yes, there will be major changes in 3.0 but I'm not against JOE 2.9.99 :) but there should be only minor patches (mainly bug-fixes). There are two problems with 3.0, I don't have a lot of time (this is not so important, right now :) and that I'm not quite sure how to work with open files in memory. After solving this problem I will start with writing something what will looks like 'engine' for editor but will be used only for viewing (so utf-8, key mapping, regexp, syntax highlighting). Then editor will be written :). I believe that viewer will be 'almost' completed in the september (after my holidays). m, PS: if you have any ideas how to store open files in memory then let me know. |
From: Vitezslav S. <sa...@ma...> - 2003-04-25 12:52:14
|
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:01:37PM +0200, Marek Grac wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Vitezslav Samel wrote: > > Did you try the current CVS? There are a lot of changes in there. > > > > > Even though 2.9.8pre1 is nearly one and a half years old, and is much > > > better than 2.9.7, many distributions (e.g. Red Hat, Mandrake) haven't yet > > > upgraded, most likely because of its pre version number. > > > > > > So even if no further development is going on in the near future, I think > > > that 2.9.8pre1 should be released as 2.9.8 (even if really nothing changes > > > except for the version number) to encourage distribution developer to > > > upgrade. > > > > Some time ago I thought of releasing 2.9.8-pre2 at least, but it seems > > that releasing 2.9.8 would be a good move. > > There are at least two minor patches which I would like to see in 2.9.8. I > believe that in week v2.9.8 should be released (with or without these > patches). What are these two patches? Mail them to me please. Cheers, Vita |
From: Koblinger E. <eg...@uh...> - 2003-05-06 13:47:20
|
> There are at least two minor patches which I would like to see in 2.9.8. I > believe that in week v2.9.8 should be released (with or without these > patches). I just happened to visit freshmeat when joe was the freshest announcement :-)) Nice work, guys! Egmont |
From: Moritz B. <bar...@gm...> - 2003-05-07 09:43:59
|
Hi everybody, On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 15:47:14 +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote: > I just happened to visit freshmeat when joe was the freshest announcement :-)) > Nice work, guys! Well, I had noticed that joe-2.9.8 was on sf.net (for a few days already) and hadn't seen any announcement (not here either, FWIW!), so I felt obliged to post it to freshmeat. (You know, some versions of apps don't make it into distributions if they don't pop up on freshmeat. :-P) I can't tell whether the mentioned patches made it into this release. Good going guys! Greetings, Moritz |
From: Vitezslav S. <sa...@ma...> - 2003-05-07 10:12:53
|
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:45:52AM +0200, Moritz Barsnick wrote: > Hi everybody, > > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 15:47:14 +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote: > > > I just happened to visit freshmeat when joe was the freshest announcement :-)) > > Nice work, guys! > > Well, I had noticed that joe-2.9.8 was on sf.net (for a few days already) > and hadn't seen any announcement (not here either, FWIW!), so I felt obliged > to post it to freshmeat. (You know, some versions of apps don't make it into > distributions if they don't pop up on freshmeat. :-P) Next time I should post an announcement here at least. Sorry, my fault. > I can't tell whether the mentioned patches made it into this release. Marek sent me one patch privately, but I refused it (just before release), because it wasn't important bugfix but a feature request. It will show up in couple of days in CVS so you can test it. Cheers, Vita |