Re: RFC: 2.3 feature list

Op ma, 22-11-2004 te 09:15 -0500, schreef Mark Gilbert:
> On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 10:35 +0000, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> > 1. EndOfBlock strux
> > In my view this is an absolute must, and should be among the first
> > things we do; if nothing else, it will make it possible for the user
> > to select blocks in an intuitive and unambigious manner.
>
> It is already the plan to add End<Strux> struxes to various
> Section<Strux>es that don't already have them (ie, HdrFtrs) in 2.4.
> This might not be a bad time for you to coordinate with martin about
> EndBlocks.

The RC code would be way more neato if we had EndFoo struxes. You have
my vote...

> > 2. Pango graphics on *nix
> > We have made good progress with support for complex scripts on Win32;
> > need to catch up on *nix.
> >
>
> There is no reason whatsoever for usage of pango/cairo to be _limited_
> to unix. I have no intention whatsoever of trying to force it on win32
> folks who have uniscribe, but there's no reason for us to develop it as
> unix-only.

Except for the additional dependencies...

> > 3. Enchant on win32
> > I would quite like to see this, to be able to make use of any
> > system/other spell-checking libs, just as fjf is doing on the Mac,
> > but have not investigated the feasibility/real usefulness.
>
> I would like to see this too. So would other key people. Of course,
> it's not about what we'd like to see, it's about what's _going to
> happen_.

To add to the list:

- What about 'my double patch'? Would be nice to get that in... It's
about 90% ready for the first part. I could have it compilable in about
1 week.

- What about fixing the _massive_ number of filed bugs? I would give
that the nr 1 priority over any new feature.

> Math support is under development in branch and is NOT ready to be
> merged. GSF IO also is not near ready, but this will take much fewer
> manhours than math in general so I'm less worried about it.

We don't even have the beginnings of any GSF IO work ?

> Once it
> works in branch and doesn't fsck over otherwise working platforms, it
> should be mergable (as long as we aren't frozen by then).

> RC is
> unfortunately in the same branch but is nearly ready to be merged, so
> I'll hand-merge that when I get the goahead from the lead dev with whom
> I've talked (after 2.2 is branched).

Will give you a ping when it is ready. Not within the next 2 weeks
though, and even after the merge, I'd like to see it in DEBUG only for a
while.

> On that note, 2.2 cannot be branched until after a significant number of
> first priority 2.2.x bugs are fixed. NOT all of them, but there's quite
> a few that we really felt sick to our stomachs about releasing 2.2
> without.

ACK! (see above where I made the same point, I should read the whole msg
first :)

> Fortunately, I've seen some broad support on irc for this
> idea. As for timeframe for this step, it all depends on bugs fixed. If
> there's great progress in this respect in the next two weeks, that's all
> we have to wait. If the next two weeks are completely quiet from the
> coders, branching might be a fine christmas present as fjf pointed out.

Ack.

Marc
Received on Mon Nov 22 17:13:57 2004