[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?
From: |
Chris Pugh |
Subject: |
Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0? |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:30:31 +0100 |
On 21 April 2010 08:55, Andreas Haufler (scireum) <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I’d like to clarify the statement made by mike. What we meant by saying
> we’re waiting for a “1.0” is that the git-code now and then seems to be a
> bit broke. So we are actually asking for an estimate when some of you would
> think the code is stable enough so that we would run a lot of tests, do a
> lot of debugging and report errors or fixes to the list.
I think we knew really what was meant Andeas. Merely the way that it was put,
that caused me to go for 'leg pulling' in my comments. ;o)
> So that was clearly meant to be an offer to contribute to the project. We
> enjoy using pdf2swf and we’re absolutely willing to contribute back. We just
> don’t have the time to start all those tests, just to find out, that pdf2swf
> fails with a seg fault or so, because there’s a memory issue or what not.
Understood.
> To my eyes, some coordination on generating a release which is stable and
> usable (independent of which features are in) would be a good thing to do.
Agreed.
> And chris, to answer your question, you are indeed unfair ;-)
I was? ;o)
> Tests are as much a part of good software as the development of new features
They are too.
>. So providing a large test set..
Quantity is not usually the watchword. Variety however, possibly is.
Give me specific
criteria in small doses against general messing about every time.
> and contributing to a stable and mature release is DEFINITELY an incentive
> and not
> at all to be criticized.
Quite so.
> ALSO, at least you might want to check the list archives first. We had a
> specific feature
> request and we DID offer money for a fix. (We also did some contributions
> and research concerning the new font rendering in FP10).
As I think I stated, putting these requests in a more obvious place,
say on a specific wiki
page, may just help. Trawling lengthy postings on a mailing list for
snippets of information
is not my ( nor anyone else's I suspect ), idea of fun! Is the
project large enough to warrant
the use of something like Bugzilla or Trac, or is the wiki sufficient
for now? Anyone?
> I'd say, we all calm down a bit, remain a friendly and open conversation on
> this list and focus on the development and delivery of good software.
I'm so chilled as to be almost horizontal. Simply can't resist the
odd wind-up, that's all.
> Our offer remains, as long as some of you are interested in making a "1.0"
> or whatever, we're willing to invest a lot of time in testing, debugging and
> of course, contributing back to the project. However, some coordination
> would be a necessary.
Co-ordination does seem to be a bit lax. Suggestions as to a way forward?
> freundliche Grüße
>
> Andreas Haufler
> Geschäftsführer
Und zu Ihnen,
Chris.
- Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, (continued)
- Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Chris Pugh, 2010/04/21
- Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Aaron Hawryluk, 2010/04/20
- RE: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Matthew Richer, 2010/04/20
- Message not available
- Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, filip sound, 2010/04/21
- Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Chris Pugh, 2010/04/21
- Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Dr. Alex Sheppard, 2010/04/21
- RE: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Andreas Haufler \(scireum\), 2010/04/21
- Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Chris Pugh, 2010/04/21
- Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Chris Pugh, 2010/04/21
- RE: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Andreas Haufler \(scireum\), 2010/04/21
- Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?,
Chris Pugh <=
Re: [Swftools-common] version 1.0?, Chris Pugh, 2010/04/20