Fw: Re: [Dillo-dev] next release of dillo?
--- On Sun, 5/1/11, corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> wrote:
From: corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev] next release of dillo? To: Dillo-dev@dillo.org Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 1:18 AM Globe Trotter wrote:
just wondering when the next release of dillo will be, i.e. if there is a planned timeline? we appear to be at dillo2.2 for a while now?
IIRC, maybe a month or two ago, Jorge wanted to wait until FLTK 1.3 was released before making any Dillo releases at all, but it seems that users find fltk bugs at the same rate that developers fix them ( http://fltk.org/roadmap.php#1.3 ), so...
Yes, i know, thanks! Hopefully, fltk1.3 will not go the same way as fltk2. IMO, dillo's adoption seems to be negatively affected largely because of the uncertain pace and status of fltk....for instance, fedora repos are not updating dillo from 0.8.6 simply because it is based on fltk2, which is not released and perhaps will never be, though even that is not clear..... T
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 08:12:39AM -0700, Globe Trotter wrote:
--- On Sun, 5/1/11, corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> wrote:
From: corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev] next release of dillo? To: Dillo-dev@dillo.org Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 1:18 AM Globe Trotter wrote:
just wondering when the next release of dillo will be, i.e. if there is a planned timeline? we appear to be at dillo2.2 for a while now?
IIRC, maybe a month or two ago, Jorge wanted to wait until FLTK 1.3 was released before making any Dillo releases at all, but it seems that users find fltk bugs at the same rate that developers fix them ( http://fltk.org/roadmap.php#1.3 ), so...
Yes, i know, thanks! Hopefully, fltk1.3 will not go the same way as fltk2.
Fortunately fltk1.3 seems to be going in a very different way, with near five active core developers, which have done lots of work on it the last months. Since rc3, the devs focused on utf8 issues on different platforms and also widget printing (these tasks are quite complex), while also doing STR work. OTOH, for years (as I do review the changelogs) FLTK2 has mainly "nominal" updates (i.e. one-line patches or really minor stuff). This group is responsive too: e.g. http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L2615 (closed in one day)
IMO, dillo's adoption seems to be negatively affected largely because of the uncertain pace and status of fltk....for instance, fedora repos are not updating dillo from 0.8.6 simply because it is based on fltk2, which is not released and perhaps will never be,
That's was exactly my main point for going with fltk1.3. We saw that our way into official distro repositories (i.e a distro-packaged dillo) is banned because of the unreleased library. The possibility of a statically linked package, though technically possible, is banned by distro's policy too: they don't include statically linked apps. because of the nightmare of maintenance/security it conveys (quite understandable). So, while we don't have an officially released underlying toolkit we're out of distros. :-P Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it themselves, which they already do. When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series. Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 final release now, we can make it. -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it themselves, which they already do.
When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series.
Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 final release now, we can make it.
It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version. I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- and their recent release surprised me. Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life.
On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:06:27 -0400, corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> wrote:
Jorge wrote:
Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it themselves, which they already do.
When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series.
Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 final release now, we can make it.
It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version.
I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- and their recent release surprised me.
Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life.
I think there should be one more release of fltk-2.x Dillo, if only so the last year's worth of changes in Mercurial don't look completely abandoned. We know it's all been moved to 1.3 now, but people outside the project won't. Keep users happy, make ourselves look good... ~Benjamin
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:13:19PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:06:27 -0400, corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> wrote:
Jorge wrote:
Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it themselves, which they already do.
When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series.
Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 final release now, we can make it.
It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version.
I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- and their recent release surprised me.
Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life.
I think there should be one more release of fltk-2.x Dillo, if only so the last year's worth of changes in Mercurial don't look completely abandoned. We know it's all been moved to 1.3 now, but people outside the project won't. Keep users happy, make ourselves look good...
Fair enough. Volunteers to put up the release, make one step ahead! ;-) -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:13:19PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:06:27 -0400, corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> wrote:
Jorge wrote:
Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it themselves, which they already do.
When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series.
Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 final release now, we can make it.
It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version.
I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- and their recent release surprised me.
Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life.
I think there should be one more release of fltk-2.x Dillo, if only so the last year's worth of changes in Mercurial don't look completely abandoned. We know it's all been moved to 1.3 now, but people outside the project won't. Keep users happy, make ourselves look good...
Fair enough.
Volunteers to put up the release, make one step ahead! ;-)
This is why I was hesitant to say anything -- I knew what it was tantamount to... :)
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 09:21:25PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:13:19PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 14:06:27 -0400, corvid <corvid@lavabit.com> wrote:
Jorge wrote:
Making a new, dillo-2.3 release is not much of a point because people using dillo already have to get it from us and build it themselves, which they already do.
When fltk-1.3 is released we could make a dillo-2 final release letting users know we're going with the dillo-3 series.
Although if somebody comes with a good reason to make a dillo-2 final release now, we can make it.
It is probably nice to have a release every year or so, at least, so that wikipedia and the dillo homepage say "Dillo is alive" instead of "Dillo is dead" to visitors. Plus anyone trying to use the 2.2 release code will find that it doesn't like their libpng version.
I'm personally generally not one to follow whatever code happens to be in repositories, so for instance I thought fvwm was pretty dead -- and their recent release surprised me.
Then again, if we added a news item talking about the port being in decent shape, and added something in screenshots/ (even though it looks nearly identical to 2.2), that would be a sign of life.
I think there should be one more release of fltk-2.x Dillo, if only so the last year's worth of changes in Mercurial don't look completely abandoned. We know it's all been moved to 1.3 now, but people outside the project won't. Keep users happy, make ourselves look good...
Fair enough.
Volunteers to put up the release, make one step ahead! ;-)
This is why I was hesitant to say anything -- I knew what it was tantamount to... :)
Same here :) But seriously, we should release what we have for fltk2 in the near future. Current tip is very stable and has many improvements over our last release. Cheers, Johannes
participants (5)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
itsme_410＠yahoo.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de -
obeythepenguin＠gmail.com