Subject: Re: Version 0.9.0
From: Eric W. Sink (eric@sourcegear.com)
Date: Mon Apr 24 2000 - 10:22:47 CDT
> Well -
>
> 0.1.0 - 0.3.0 3.5 months
> 0.3.0 - 0.5.0 4.0 months
> 0.5.0 - 0.7.0 2.5 months
> 0.7.0 - 0.9.0 11 months and counting (or more than half of the total
> time since initial release)
No argument here. We're eager to accelerate development to get
AbiWord to 1.0. The only defense I might offer for the schedule above
is that it is not linear. The jump from 0.7 to 0.9 contains more
functionality than the other jumps in your chart. That does not
change the truth of the matter, which is that AbiWord development
needs a boost of new momentum to get 1.0 out the door.
> > > - - Finish headers and footers
> > > With this, page numbering comes mostly for free
> >
> > As long as fields are done, right?
> >
>
> Currently, we have the field support to do page numbering. There's a
> message in the archives somewhere that mentions how to hack the .abw file
> to put them in. I hope we don't break that when we change fields.
I'm aware of the existing field support, but I've seen several
messages on the list about the subject of switching fields to be a
container (in the XML sense). The messages seemed to indicate that
someone was convinced of the validity of such a change, even though it
would break compatibility with the current implementation of fields.
> > > - - Online Help (or some form of documentation)
> > > This should go without saying. We have lots of developer docs
> > > (see my webpage) but none for the end user. This should be fixed (an I
> > > volunteer to start).
> >
> > Hmmm. Painful though it might be, this one looks like something which
> > could slip from 0.9.0, IMHO. I'm not saying that we don't need online
> > help. BTW, I assume you meant that you would volunteer to start on
> > the English version, right? ;-)
>
> IMHO, it would be ok if we didn't have online help in 1.0, but we
> definitely need *something*. As to the language, I was going to try
> Klingon, but I don't think that Unicode supports the char set.
I've heard that the Unicode consortium actually had to formally reject
the addition of Klingon characters from a group which made a serious
proposal. :-) They apparently mumbled something about the slippery
slope of adding support for fictional languages.
> I suspect that there are several more duplicates we haven't found yet,
> too. I suppose that lots of bug reports are a sign of user interest. But
> I have to admit to prefering 817 bugs to 36933 (the current mozilla
> count).
Indeed.
-- Eric W. Sink, Software Craftsman SourceGear Corporation eric@sourcegear.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Apr 24 2000 - 11:45:34 CDT