4:17 a.m.
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
--
Jonathan Phillips <jon@...15...>
4:24 a.m.
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
8:08 a.m.
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
1:09 p.m.
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
1:39 p.m.
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
--
Jonathan Phillips <jon@...15...>
1:35 a.m.
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
1 p.m.
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:
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
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
6990
days inactive
7027
days old
inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Jonathan Phillips -
MenTaLguY -
Ted Gould