Re: branching for release?

[logari81]

On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 10:19 -0800, Michael D Godfrey wrote:
> On 01/18/2011 06:58 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: 
> > On 18 January 2011 04:25, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > If we were to release today with the current sources, are there any
> > > > mind blowingly obvious problems that will affect nearly everyone who
> > > > runs Octave?
> > I really wish we could fix the fltk race condition before release.
> > It's about the only problem before we can promote fltk as a reasonable
> > default. Not saying that it should be the default yet, only that I do
> > think this bug is serious enough.
> > 
> > - Jordi G. H.
> I agree that it would be very beneficial to have the printing timing
> problem fixed. fltk as currently implemented provides a lot of useful
> features.  I tried to find the timing problem quite a while ago, but
> ended
> up hoping that Shai would have the time to fix it.  It is not a simple
> problem. :-(      
> 
> What I did was try to find a way to delay the failing file reference
> until
> the file became available, but all the attempts clearly blocked the
> activity
> that would create the file, which lead to deadlock.
> 

>From my part:

1. Current version of the fltk backend doesn't show minor ticks/grid,
there is no bug report for this, but there is a patch:
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2011-January/022173.html

2. a)Color of axis labels / b)Positioning of axis labels at right and
top:
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?31800
a) there is a patch for the colors, waiting for evaluation
b) I can provide a patch for the positioning after the patch of (1) is
accepted/pushed 

3. I would also like to apply this patch:
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2011-January/022108.html
but this also depend on the progress on (1)

4. Axes Position/Outerpositioning/Tightinset synchronization
Probably will not do it for 3.4. I have a plan for fixing this but it is
quite a long of work still (also depends on (1) and (3))


Concerning the replacement of "backend" I don't have any fixed opinion.
Concerning replacing "fltk" I would vote against "fltk_opengl", I would
prefer one of "fltk" or "opengl".

Best regards

Kostas