On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:18:30PM +0100, J.B.C.Engelen@...1578... wrote:
Hi all,
Yesterday I had a chat with mgsloan about lib2geom integration for GSoC'08. We spoke about working together on it. He knows 2geom very well, I know Inkscape well and have worked with 2geom a lot for LPE. Because complete conversion to 2geom is a big task, where 2geom issues can become apparant, I think it is nice to have a 2geom developer working on it aswell (although I did commit some small things to 2geom, I do not count myself as a real 2geom developer). This way, we can both work and discuss things where we are uncertain. I hope to have a somewhat longer discussion with mgsloan within the next couple of days.
How do people feel about this?
Apart from having a 2-man team on lib2geom integration: I know I have been very brief in my gsoc proposal as blueprint. I am thinking about
- writing test code (cxxtest)
- integrating lib2geom in steps, for example per tool or per feature
- switching to 2geom path representation in inkscape core is advanced task and should be tried later in the project
- I'd rather *not* work in a branch, because then people that code new things will use 2geom instead of me/us having to recode new things to 2geom. (conflicts etc abound)
- Release lib2geom after integration is complete. Not before integration is complete because of things that might be missing or bugged in 2geom.
This all sounds good, and appropriate for fitting in with our refactoring goals. I hope there are also plans on doing some pre-releases of 2geom, so that if there are any issues that come up during linking/packaging/autoconf work, they can be addressed ahead of time.
Bryce