Re: Release Plans

[Benjamin Abbott]

On Sep 26, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Rik <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/25/2013 06:01 PM, address@hidden wrote:
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:09:04 -0400
>> From: "Michael D. Godfrey" <address@hidden>
>> To: "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Subject: Re: Release Plans
>> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>> 
>> On 09/25/2013 04:35 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
>>>> I'm leaning toward the first option but I'd like to know what other
>>>> people think.
>> John,
>> 
>> I have been biting my tongue over the fact that the next release
>> has been slipping away.  This is not apparently due to lack of work.
>> Rather, the reverse: so many important changes have been going
>> on that "tomorrow has always looked, and proved to be, better
>> than today."
>> 
>> So, without any qualification, I vote for a release as soon as
>> possible.  I routinely use the current devel system for "real" work
>> and have not found any significant problems lately.
>> I am quite sure that the current 3.6.4 release would even compile
>> some of my code.
>> 
>> I would even advocate making FLTK the default graphics system.
>> This should be made clear to users, with the comment that if
>> necessary they can switch back to gnuplot, or modify their code
>> a bit to get what they want with FLTK.  And, since users can choose
>> whether or not to use the GUI, the way it is now is just fine.  The
>> fact that it can (will) be made better tomorrow is not relevant.
> 9/26/13
> 
> I'm rather old-fashioned in that I think software should be tested and
> working before it is released.  The modern paradigm, a la Chrome/Firefox,
> is to release stuff, broken or not, and any broken bits can be fixed soon
> because the next release is only 6 weeks away.
> 
> My feeling is that the GUI introduction should really be a splash which
> means switching over to OpenGL as the default plotting engine and having Qt
> handles to match the rest of the GUI.  If we do a "soft open" then I don't
> think we get the publicity bump and I think it will make fundraising more
> difficult as we will be asking them to donate for something which only half
> works and only partially meets their needs.
> 
> That said, we have an enormous backlog of good features which need to get
> out.  I always thought that we were going to do an intermediate 3.8 release
> anyways so I will put that forward again.  Why not do a quick release now,
> which still treats the GUI as experimental, and a 4.0 release whenever
> JHandles have been incorporated?
> 
> --Rik

I'd like to second Rik's suggestion ... Rik, you meant Qhandles correct?

Ben