Fwd: Roadmap for AbiWord 3.0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Sevior <msevior@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Roadmap for AbiWord 3.0
To: "J.M. Maurer" <uwog@uwog.net>

HI Marc,
           Thanks for starting this discussion. I'm pretty confident
that the new PT can be merged relatively quickly. This is the lognpt
branch. The remaining bugs in the new PT can removed pretty quickly I
think.

Unfortunately the new table branch will be much harder to get bug
free. There is also work on getting much more precise table controls
and features including vertical positioning of cells.

Also we currently have expandable text boxes but no UI and people
interested in other new features for which we have bounties from
NLnet. (borders/shading, metadata). Are we going to try get these into
3.0?

I agree that it would be great to improve the win32 themeing. AbiWord
looks very dated on win32.

Cheers

Martin

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM, J.M. Maurer <uwog@uwog.net> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> After AbiWord 2.8 comes AbiWord 3.0 (let's skip 2.10, people will be
> confused), which means we need to decide what to put in it.
>
> Fridrich already committed some work towards a Windows 64 bit port, so
> that will be in 3.0 to start.
>
> Then we have some stuff lined up in branches that we need to decide upon
> when to merge:
>
> 1. gsoc2009gettext - port abiword to gettext, making plugins localizable
> 2. gsoc2009unicode - make the Win32 port a true unicode application
> 3. gsoc2009tablelayout - improve (table layout) performance, includes
> the new PieceTable.
>
> My current thinking is that I'd love to see a 'quick' 3.0 release with
> 1) and 2) in it. This because they are very user visible features making
> AbiWord useful to a big new group of people, and they are very unlikely
> to destabilize AbiWord. This means just a short time of stabilizing
> would be needed.
>
> I'm very aware that 3) will have great benefits as well, but the
> drawback is that it is very likely to introduce bugs that need to be
> ironed out. As soon as we release 3.0, we could merge this branch as
> well.
>
> Comments? Better ideas?
>
>  Marc
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 17 01:58:16 2009