Re: [Devel] 2.1.0 branch created

[Werner LEMBERG]

>   I've just created the "unstable" branch of the FreeType
>   sources, tagged "VER-2-1-0". It is based on "VER-2-0-6"
>   with is the current "stable" branch..

I really hope that the development branch is the head branch (i.e.,
checking out without specifying a tag I get the current development
version)!  So you should have created a `stable' branch.  Otherwise,
please fix this -- it is common behaviour (e.g. Emacs) to do so.

>   I'm currently wondering wether all these changes can fit
>   adequately in the 2.x release branch, or if we'd better start
>   working on FreeType 3.x right now.

Incrementally adding features (if possible) helps to reduce the
number of bugs :-)

>      - rewriting the library in C++, though I'm uncertain wether
>        this will be a good thing or not, I'd like your opinion on
>        the subject. (Of course this doesnt prevent us from providing
>        a C interface for it)

Please don't.  Since one of our targets is the embedded market, C
code is vital IMHO -- maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that there are a
lot of C++ compilers out there for such systems.

>      - use the MLib, which now supports 95% of the non-font
>        specific features of FreeType (memory management,
>        streams, structure i/o, debugging, etc..) as well as
>        allow for the coding of much simpler and maintainable
>        code (for more details on this topic, head to
>        http://www.freetype.org/david/reliable-c.html";)

Yes!

>   Meanwhile, I intend to work on the 'jam' build tool. My first goal
>   is to support Unix builds and installation flawlessly for FreeType
>   in order to get rid of our infamous Make-based build system. I
>   also want to collaborate with the Boost project (www.boost.org)
>   since they have enhanced Jam to support really interesting things
>   like the management of multiple builds (debug/release/optimized)
>   (with all the voodoo that it requires, like determining special
>   compilation options, etc..)

What annoys me most is that there is no maintainer of jam.  So many
people are doing so many changes in parallel.  I really hope this can
be fixed somehow (e.g. integrating your changes into the boost
system).

> So little things to do, so little time :o)

You mean `so many things', don't you :-)


    Werner