Re: How frozen? (Re: Patch: use std::string)

I shouldn't have said any of that. I don't mean to marginalize
anybody's contributions or belittle any particular port. I'm sorry.

I'd like to see a list of outstanding issues discussed here on the ML,
along with a plan for how we're going to resolve those issues and how
long it will take.

Apologies,
Dom (eating humble pie)

On 1/18/07, Dominic Lachowicz <domlachowicz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (a) we need some feedback on the AbiCollab stuff, which is the principal
> > new feature for the 2.6, and the Win/Mac UIs for it still need to be
> > created based on that feedback.
>
> I feel that this is simply unrealistic, given our present condition.
> The MacOS bugs targeted @ 2.4 and 2.6 suggest that it'll take another
> year for it to approach parity with our Win32 port, let alone the Unix
> one. Given our relative lack of resources in the MacOS and Win32
> communities, I'm ok with stragglers, absent a realistic promise to set
> our affairs in order. "Let's wait it out and hope for the best" is an
> unacceptable plan.
>
> > (b) we need some feedback on the Pango rendering from a non-Latin world.
> > (I am uneasy about the OLPC using the 2.5.0 in this regard, but that is
> > their choice.)
>
> Agreed, but then we need to be more proactive about things if we're
> going to consider this to be a show-stopper. We can't say "we'll let
> it lie around for a few months and hope someone tries it with Indic
> and then reports it in bugzilla." Especially since our 2.5.0 Unix and
> Source download stats are presently a rounding error, mostly come from
> western nations, and people's general disdain for bug trackers.
>
> > I think we need to make sure that both of these new features work well,
> > and are rock stable to avoid returning back to the 'AbiWord misbehaves
> > all the time' reputation that got in the 2.2 series and worked hard (and
> > successfully) to get rid of in the 2.4 cycle.
>
> That's why I set my bar at "as good as or better than 2.4.latest" for
> releasing 2.6, and not "leaps and bounds better than 2.4.latest".
> Perhaps my standards are too low, and that is why I said "ok, maybe a
> month isn't enough time." It's ok to change one's opinion when
> presented with new evidence and new arguments.
>
> Cheers,
> Dom
> --
> Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums.
>

-- 
Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums.