Hey all,
I just got back to my normal location at UC-San Diego. It is nice to be back in my 24 work zone.
I'm thinking of a few things and decided that I would itemize rather than ramble-ize.
1.) PAYPAL: Do we have some form of paypal donations setup for our project. I would like to look into this. I've even been toying with the idea of getting some form of funding from UCSD to plugin to our project to "encourage" certain features to be implemented. I don't know if the "bounties" concept fits, but is interesting.
2.) NODE USABILITY: I don't know what to call it, but I will call it the extra-functionality "handle" for spirals, stars, circles and squares (rounding) is hard to see against a white background. I think we need to do something about the visibility of this. Maybe either by putting a white border around it, or making it reverse on colors. The normal nodes are hard to see sometimes as well. I think we should change the color of the nodes to be darker, or have a white outline or something to pop-them out against black and other dark colors. Just a thought...if you are all interested in this, then I will add another RFE.
3.) TIMETABLE for the next release? I know we have many many many more tasks to complete for this milestone, but now that we are after the new year, maybe we could have a target date for getting the current milestone complete. How about Sunday, February 1st?
Cool...
Jon
On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 12:17, Jonathan Phillips wrote:
1.) PAYPAL: Do we have some form of paypal donations setup for our project. I would like to look into this. I've even been toying with the idea of getting some form of funding from UCSD to plugin to our project to "encourage" certain features to be implemented. I don't know if the "bounties" concept fits, but is interesting.
I think that we could probably use the Sourceforge donation system for this, but I guess it comes down to - what do we want to do with the money. If we were to do bounties or something like that - most likely we'd end up paying ourselves...
This was a similar discussion to when we were talking about setting up a Cafepress store (which is still on my list of things to do) what we'd do with the money. The first thought (and the only one I know of) would be to keep a fund to may for conference fees where it would make sense to represent Inkscape.
3.) TIMETABLE for the next release? I know we have many many many more tasks to complete for this milestone, but now that we are after the new year, maybe we could have a target date for getting the current milestone complete. How about Sunday, February 1st?
This sounds like a reasonable time for a release, I'm not sure everything on the milestone page right now could make it within that timeframe though.
--Ted
On 3 Jan 2004, Ted Gould wrote:
3.) TIMETABLE for the next release? I know we have many many many more tasks to complete for this milestone, but now that we are after the new year, maybe we could have a target date for getting the current milestone complete. How about Sunday, February 1st?
This sounds like a reasonable time for a release, I'm not sure everything on the milestone page right now could make it within that timeframe though.
I'll go over the list and see if I can trim it down to what seems likely to be achieved within this timeframe. Getting a release out by the end of the month sounds like a good target. Lots of progress has been made over the past few weeks, so a release is quite warranted. Especially with the great work done on the Windows package.
This time through, one thing I would like to see us do differently is be a little more organized about coordinating the packaging and release notifications. Last time the notices went out prior to many of the packages being produced, but I think it's well within our capabilities to get the packages generated first, and I figure users will appreciate that. This'll require us to hold off for a few days on the announcement though, while folks create the packages. It would probably also be wise to have a few people test packages before we post them. I'd also like to adopt a naming convention for the packages so it's clearer what's different from one package to another.
Bryce
On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 14:17, Jonathan Phillips wrote:
2.) NODE USABILITY: I don't know what to call it, but I will call it the extra-functionality "handle" for spirals, stars, circles and squares (rounding) is hard to see against a white background. I think we need to do something about the visibility of this. Maybe either by putting a white border around it, or making it reverse on colors. The normal nodes are hard to see sometimes as well. I think we should change the color of the nodes to be darker, or have a white outline or something to pop-them out against black and other dark colors. Just a thought...if you are all interested in this, then I will add another RFE.
I'm personally a fan of the "karaoke" approach -- e.g. black with a white outline or vice-versa.
-mental
I think that sounds like the best option for node color. It will then be inline with our karaoke approach for color shiznit...
kewl...anymore thoughts?
jon
On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 20:09, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 14:17, Jonathan Phillips wrote:
2.) NODE USABILITY: I don't know what to call it, but I will call it the extra-functionality "handle" for spirals, stars, circles and squares (rounding) is hard to see against a white background. I think we need to do something about the visibility of this. Maybe either by putting a white border around it, or making it reverse on colors. The normal nodes are hard to see sometimes as well. I think we should change the color of the nodes to be darker, or have a white outline or something to pop-them out against black and other dark colors. Just a thought...if you are all interested in this, then I will add another RFE.
I'm personally a fan of the "karaoke" approach -- e.g. black with a white outline or vice-versa.
-mental
On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 16:08, Bryce Harrington wrote:
This time through, one thing I would like to see us do differently is be a little more organized about coordinating the packaging and release notifications. Last time the notices went out prior to many of the packages being produced, but I think it's well within our capabilities to get the packages generated first, and I figure users will appreciate that. This'll require us to hold off for a few days on the announcement though, while folks create the packages. It would probably also be wise to have a few people test packages before we post them. I'd also like to adopt a naming convention for the packages so it's clearer what's different from one package to another.
So, how about this for process:
1) Generate offical tarball. 2) Post it on Sourceforge 3) Announce to Inkscape-Devel 4) Wait 3 days (I'd like this to be time based) 5) Announce everywhere else in the world ;) (Anyone know where we can get a blimp?)
--Ted
On 4 Jan 2004, Ted Gould wrote:
On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 16:08, Bryce Harrington wrote:
This time through, one thing I would like to see us do differently is be a little more organized about coordinating the packaging and release notifications. Last time the notices went out prior to many of the packages being produced, but I think it's well within our capabilities to get the packages generated first, and I figure users will appreciate that. This'll require us to hold off for a few days on the announcement though, while folks create the packages. It would probably also be wise to have a few people test packages before we post them. I'd also like to adopt a naming convention for the packages so it's clearer what's different from one package to another.
So, how about this for process:
- Generate offical tarball.
- Post it on Sourceforge
- Announce to Inkscape-Devel
- Wait 3 days (I'd like this to be time based)
- Announce everywhere else in the world ;) (Anyone know where we can
get a blimp?)
--Ted
I like this process. Let's plan on doing this.
Btw, I just closed the other XML editor bug - I removed what appears to be an unnecessary assert that's getting hit; behavior seems correct with it removed.
And with the bug that jceuppens fixed and mrdocs verified, we're down to 5 critical bugs. If we can get 2 more closed, we're ok to establish the release branch and generate the official tarball.
Has anyone had a chance to bang on the app for a while to make sure there aren't other issues we've overlooked?
Bryce
participants (4)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Jonathan Phillips -
MenTaLguY -
Ted Gould