One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
That sounds great. It'll def create some buzz. But I hope that it wouldn't make it so shiny and attractive that people jump on it before some it's really stable enough to want wide-spread testing. One of the first things I get asked is why, after all these years, is there no v1.0 yet? My answer mirrors what is on the web site, but I wonder if calling .93 1.0-alpha, because of long standing pent-up anticipation, might be a teeny bit premature?
But wow, If it feels like that's really where were at, that's super duper exciting. :D
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:50 PM Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> wrote:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
I mean.. any HINT of a 1.0 release is going to be BIG news in the graphics world at large, yes? Even beyond our FLOSS shores. Press release big?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM Grady Broyles <slobeck@...400...> wrote:
That sounds great. It'll def create some buzz. But I hope that it wouldn't make it so shiny and attractive that people jump on it before some it's really stable enough to want wide-spread testing. One of the first things I get asked is why, after all these years, is there no v1.0 yet? My answer mirrors what is on the web site, but I wonder if calling .93 1.0-alpha, because of long standing pent-up anticipation, might be a teeny bit premature?
But wow, If it feels like that's really where were at, that's super duper exciting. :D
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:50 PM Bryce Harrington < bryce@...961...> wrote:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and anything that involves new features will be after.
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote:
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Thanks, actually that makes all the sense i was missing form it. I agree if .93 went out with people thinking it was as stable as .92 they'll wind up getting grumpy. And good to know that it means a feature freeze. That actually helps to get my head around it and be able to answer questions that I'll get asked by eager users.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:48 AM Alex Valavanis <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote:
The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and anything that involves new features will be after.
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote:
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote:
The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about this course of action, first.
But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first (plus getting caught up at work).
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.
Bryce
Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and anything that involves new features will be after.
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote:
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as 1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release.
On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote:
The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about this course of action, first.
But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first (plus getting caught up at work).
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.
Bryce
Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and anything that involves new features will be after.
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote:
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Totally agree with Ryan. Having the name alpha raise awareness on the stability of the version and having 1.0 in it as well will make people super excited about it -- I know I am!
+1 for all this.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 12:30 PM Ryan Gorley via Inkscape-devel, < inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as 1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release.
On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote:
The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about this course of action, first.
But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first (plus getting caught up at work).
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.
Bryce
Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and anything that involves new features will be after.
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...>
wrote:
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from
now
until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of
1.0.
Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can
be no
intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often
respond
to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want
that to
happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is
ready,
or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which
will
be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1]
and
your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on
1.0 and
hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the
case
then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94
and
0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year
or
postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...
:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to
releasing
1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral
or
functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we
may
not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has
been
our plan to message this development release (which we have referred
to
as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on
the
0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year
timeframe.
What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus
among
attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a
listing
of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take
care of
them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would
require
or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling
or
reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would
like
to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Before, we’re moving on to 1.0. I think we should have at least a large amount of people voting on features they really would love to see before they can call it 1.0. I know I want to see gradient stroke, better gradient mesh nodes handling (forcing tangent lines to move along with each other, and making gradient mesh tangent to each others, and making LPEs work on them) before 1.0 happens. Good gradient mesh support is the only thing I see missing in Inkscape besides CMYK, and a good portion of vector painting is possible only because gradient mesh is a thing. I know I would rather use vectors than raster with very good gradient mesh support, and there wouldn’t be much of a reason for me to use rasters with such a thing.
Just a thought here.
________________________________ From: Victor Westmann <victor.westmann@...400...> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:50:26 PM To: Ryan Gorley Cc: Inkscape Devel List Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Roadmap 1.0
Totally agree with Ryan. Having the name alpha raise awareness on the stability of the version and having 1.0 in it as well will make people super excited about it -- I know I am!
+1 for all this.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 12:30 PM Ryan Gorley via Inkscape-devel, <inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.netmailto:inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as 1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release.
On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote:
The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about this course of action, first.
But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first (plus getting caught up at work).
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.
Bryce
Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and anything that involves new features will be after.
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...mailto:valavanisalex@...400...> wrote:
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...mailto:christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...mailto:bryce@...961...>:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.netmailto:Inkscape-devel@...1240...ceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.netmailto:Inkscape-devel@...2181...eforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.netmailto:Inkscape-devel@...349...orge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.netmailto:Inkscape-devel@...941...rge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot_______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.netmailto:Inkscape-devel@...2164...e.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Thanks Miguel,
It's worth noting though that the Gtk+ 3 changes are already committed, so whatever happens the next release will be highly experimental and will require several pre-releases over a ~12 month period.
The 1.0 release is intended to be our first "stable" release, at the end of this "freeze" period, so if we add any experimental new features, that could feasibly add another year to the Inkscape 1.0 release schedule.
Of course, if there is a strong consensus from the user community that Inkscape is unfit for stable release without a particular feature, and a corresponding willingness to delay the schedule then we can do so. If it's a "highly desirable" feature, rather than "release-critical", then I'd recommend pushing this into Inkscape 1.1.
Note that in parallel with our stable release programme, developers *will* still be able to work on new features in public branches, and we can make builds of these available if people want early access to experimental features. They just won't be included in the official 1.0 packages.
Hope that helps!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 18:04 Miguel Lopez, <reptillia39@...3425...> wrote:
Before, we’re moving on to 1.0. I think we should have at least a large amount of people voting on features they really would love to see before they can call it 1.0. I know I want to see gradient stroke, better gradient mesh nodes handling (forcing tangent lines to move along with each other, and making gradient mesh tangent to each others, and making LPEs work on them) before 1.0 happens. Good gradient mesh support is the only thing I see missing in Inkscape besides CMYK, and a good portion of vector painting is possible only because gradient mesh is a thing. I know I would rather use vectors than raster with very good gradient mesh support, and there wouldn’t be much of a reason for me to use rasters with such a thing.
Just a thought here.
*From:* Victor Westmann <victor.westmann@...400...> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:50:26 PM *To:* Ryan Gorley *Cc:* Inkscape Devel List *Subject:* Re: [Inkscape-devel] Roadmap 1.0
Totally agree with Ryan. Having the name alpha raise awareness on the stability of the version and having 1.0 in it as well will make people super excited about it -- I know I am!
+1 for all this.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018, 12:30 PM Ryan Gorley via Inkscape-devel, < inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as 1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release.
On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote:
The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about this course of action, first.
But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first (plus getting caught up at work).
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.
Bryce
Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0,
and
anything that involves new features will be after.
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...>
wrote:
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's
the
first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from
now
until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of
1.0.
Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can
be no
intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often
respond
to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want
that to
happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is
ready,
or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which
will
be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki
[1] and
your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on
1.0 and
hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the
case
then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94
and
0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the
year or
postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <
bryce@...961...>:
> One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, > looking both at the next development release, and the path to
releasing
> 1.0. > > With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral
or
> functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we
may
> not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has
been
> our plan to message this development release (which we have
referred to
> as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on
the
> 0.92.x series for them. > > Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our > software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately > provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability. > > So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development > release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or > "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an > alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further > pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year
timeframe.
> What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature? > > > Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus
among
> attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release > expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation > efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for > 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in > branches with merge deferred to post-1.0. > > As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a
listing
> of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and > divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take
care of
> them. > > For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would
require
> or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits
disabling or
> reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable. > > I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would
like
> to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward.
So,
> how does this plan sound to you? > > Bryce > > > > > >
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Inkscape-devel mailing list > Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Thanks Ryan, by the way did you get a chance to upload the video from Friday when we talked about the roadmap? It's probably tediously dull but maybe some people would like to see the sausage making on this, I think the points were all well made.
Bryce
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:28:49PM -0600, Ryan Gorley wrote:
You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as 1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release.
On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote:
The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about this course of action, first.
But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first (plus getting caught up at work).
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.
Bryce
Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and anything that involves new features will be after.
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote:
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEET82ToLDKbZa6rOpBWi0jdIrNQ9YFAlrD1fIACgkQWi0jdIrN Q9bv4xAAytwXPPibWGI2i2Lb6Zw6OUPwhFGxMZlTeB8GpKFm1se2LYOghGvgq0yU 7qGlNYSOaJrrz8jpgGvnkp73ss+0bC8ZC/eXqTfkL6H/mX3UfhiRsXxFD/Jg2A25 vwfJ9JXPN+1u9Z15NpTbCfLftYKkqTJnH0IuVbmogENbpyskbnwzT0nnCNEuWapf q0940beGvfGastnhUGrQ9j8pGJKCvEtW4/5fxznGcvjq4kizC5p+plPSAY5qQ/SU Qu91NJUBt30ALrFXiCCyhzOceGthnG1LpIUK9tcKj4Dyi+rwo/UNviL9KJY/ovt5 INw9SVDimDN/KpqJ7w7FQS4GQZq0YIIRBBL9LpzToDlf8ApFQdNxNQOiZ9z5m2i3 YMFArn98pCWRT+64Ao2uH9CuqMsEJ9rc8EPQNkIFsjlIm6XNVSQtvx0DhL948vYl 1QYnWM6XSg4oUwNii3/wARuXNWMmwAnV6345gMULDea4SWQKXRHCLXmknbxXQooQ fkYhhzdpmMJB44vletqyCaRljjZhFAeE7GBZdRr8B6SkpwyYZPV4XfqeMkWEy1OU IMnLb1DUtL8TmSKQgnOcP7M+wKttwyFUq4xScF/c99Y8XrDg0SYMc/bW1y+jKh1V PxloIhUYk23uLKcusKycmbWzdRNFCZ7v9bAt2k1aAqy3eTza1HA= =t+DJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
For anyone interested, that video is uploading right now. It should be available to watch in the next 15-20 minutes at: https://youtu.be/Gl2gvvBNJ10
Ryan
On 04/03/2018 03:01 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Thanks Ryan, by the way did you get a chance to upload the video from Friday when we talked about the roadmap? It's probably tediously dull but maybe some people would like to see the sausage making on this, I think the points were all well made.
Bryce
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:28:49PM -0600, Ryan Gorley wrote:
You probably know how I feel, but I'm definitely a +1 for releasing as 1.0-alpha. It is going to create the least amount of user confusion and help us get people excited about testing it so it's a rock-solid release.
On 04/03/2018 01:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 01:47:28PM +0000, Alex Valavanis wrote:
The roadmap on the wiki needs updating (Bryce?).
Yes it does; I started to at the hackfest but with the proposal to rejigger things I felt like we need to seek a broader consensus about this course of action, first.
But, if no one raises any major objections I will go ahead and finish cleaning it up. I have a bunch of other little matters to tend to first (plus getting caught up at work).
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.
Bryce
Essentially, anything about robustness and quality will go into 1.0, and anything that involves new features will be after.
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 09:45 Alex Valavanis, <valavanisalex@...400...> wrote:
Basically, the next thing we release will be buggy as hell, as it's the first Gtk+ 3-only release. There also won't be any new features from now until Inkscape 1.0. Therefore, it is by definition a pre-release of 1.0. Because of the scale of the changes to the underlying code, there can be no intermediate stable release.
If we called it 0.93, I can guarantee that some distros will start shipping it as their default install, regardless of how we announce/document it. (Package maintainers are busy, and will often respond to automated pings from an upstream release tracker.) We don't want that to happen, as regular users should keep going with 0.92.* until 1.0 is ready, or they will have a very bad experience!
... So the next release is going to be 1.0-alpha* (or similar), which will be for use only by bleeding-edge testers.
Hope that help!
AV
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 04:48 Christoffer Holmstedt, < christoffer.holmstedt@...400...> wrote:
I'm a bit confused after reading the roadmap on the Inkscape Wiki [1] and your email Bryce. In the email you say that focus should be put on 1.0 and hopefully release it in a year (Spring 2019) or so. If this is the case then I see no problem in releasing 0.93 as an alpha. What about 0.94 and 0.95 items from the wiki, do we expect to finish them within the year or postpone those to post v1.0?
[1] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
2018-03-31 7:49 GMT+02:00 Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
> One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, > looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing > 1.0. > > With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or > functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may > not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been > our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to > as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the > 0.92.x series for them. > > Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our > software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately > provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability. > > So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development > release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or > "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an > alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further > pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. > What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature? > > > Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among > attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release > expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation > efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for > 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in > branches with merge deferred to post-1.0. > > As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing > of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and > divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of > them. > > For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require > or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or > reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable. > > I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like > to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, > how does this plan sound to you? > > Bryce > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Inkscape-devel mailing list > Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel >
-- Christoffer Holmstedt
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEET82ToLDKbZa6rOpBWi0jdIrNQ9YFAlrD1fIACgkQWi0jdIrN Q9bv4xAAytwXPPibWGI2i2Lb6Zw6OUPwhFGxMZlTeB8GpKFm1se2LYOghGvgq0yU 7qGlNYSOaJrrz8jpgGvnkp73ss+0bC8ZC/eXqTfkL6H/mX3UfhiRsXxFD/Jg2A25 vwfJ9JXPN+1u9Z15NpTbCfLftYKkqTJnH0IuVbmogENbpyskbnwzT0nnCNEuWapf q0940beGvfGastnhUGrQ9j8pGJKCvEtW4/5fxznGcvjq4kizC5p+plPSAY5qQ/SU Qu91NJUBt30ALrFXiCCyhzOceGthnG1LpIUK9tcKj4Dyi+rwo/UNviL9KJY/ovt5 INw9SVDimDN/KpqJ7w7FQS4GQZq0YIIRBBL9LpzToDlf8ApFQdNxNQOiZ9z5m2i3 YMFArn98pCWRT+64Ao2uH9CuqMsEJ9rc8EPQNkIFsjlIm6XNVSQtvx0DhL948vYl 1QYnWM6XSg4oUwNii3/wARuXNWMmwAnV6345gMULDea4SWQKXRHCLXmknbxXQooQ fkYhhzdpmMJB44vletqyCaRljjZhFAeE7GBZdRr8B6SkpwyYZPV4XfqeMkWEy1OU IMnLb1DUtL8TmSKQgnOcP7M+wKttwyFUq4xScF/c99Y8XrDg0SYMc/bW1y+jKh1V PxloIhUYk23uLKcusKycmbWzdRNFCZ7v9bAt2k1aAqy3eTza1HA= =t+DJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2018-04-04 8:23 GMT+02:00 Ryan Gorley via Inkscape-devel < inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>:
For anyone interested, that video is uploading right now. It should be available to watch in the next 15-20 minutes at: https://youtu.be/Gl2gvvBNJ10
Thanks for the video and replies to my earlier post to the mailing list. It sort of makes sense now to move to 1.0, if Inkscape "0.93.x" is deemed feature complete for moving to 1.0 and all we need is fixing bugs/stability issues then it must of course be versioned as that (1.0~alpha).
The only question left to answer; Is Inkscape feature complete for 1.0? As developers most of us are on the same page but I wonder what users expects. A couple of years back the issue of CMYK for printing came up [1, 2], not sure if that has been solved or is expected to be solved before 1.0. I personally have no contacts in the printing industry so have no clue. What about SVG compliance? Does Inkscape support enough SVG1/2 features to call it v1.0?
In the end when writing this email I feel, using wording from Alex's earlier email, the above mentioned features are only "highly desirable" not "release critical".
[1] https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/inkscape-devel/thread/trinity-c6d... [2] http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Color_management#Color_Management
Best regards
On 04/03/2018 02:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.
+1
What I'm thinking with the snap channels is:
stable: Released versions on 0.92.x candidate: Autobuild 0.92.x branch
beta: Released versions of 1.0-preX (whatever we call it) edge: Autobuild master
Ted
On Tue, 2018-04-03 at 16:38 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
On 04/03/2018 02:25 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Meanwhile, I'd love to hear thoughts or even just +1's, since this may feel like notable change of direction for the upcoming releases for the public.
+1
What I'm thinking with the snap channels is:
stable: Released versions on 0.92.x candidate: Autobuild 0.92.x branch
beta: Released versions of 1.0-preX (whatever we call it) edge: Autobuild master
I actually think we should lean heavily on snap and flatpak packaging in order to get our beta/alpha releases tested by more people.
+1
Martin,
Thanks everyone for the favorable votes, I've updated the roadmap to reflect the consensus approach of an accelerated 1.0:
http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
I broke out the 2geom packaging task to its own thing, and like discussed at the hackfest I'll take the action of working on getting a release out for it. I wasn't sure what version number to pick for it, and just picked 1.0 at random; I figure since we're targeting Inkscape 1.0, having 2geom at roughly the same version number will be sensible.
I'm reticent to pencil in even vague dates on that wiki page, but we've been considering doing what we're now calling 1.0alpha some time mid to late 2018, with 1.0-final being in 2019. If we can make good progress at crossing off items on the roadmap, the dates could be earlier.
Alex, I had some trouble remembering exactly what gtk3 work we decided to focus on for 1.0alpha and what to postpone to 1.1. Would you mind editing this wiki page and detailing a bit better what should be planned for when?
Tav, can you look at the other tasks outlined for 1.0alpha and let me know if it looks reasonable, or too much? All the stuff there seems like it would be best to get in for 1.0, but I'm uncertain if we have the right resources to tackle it so need some advice. Also, are there any priorities for the 1.0alpha release that I've missed, or that got moved to 1.1 but should be in 1.0?
We talked about working on test cases, and I took the action to split up migration of old test cases amongst active developers. I'll do that in the next few weeks. We also need the distcheck target set up (I'll do it at some point if no one beats me). There have also been scattered reports of various bad performance problems, so we should look into any easy fixes that don't risk too much disruption of internals.
Thanks, Bryce
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:49:43PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Hi Bryce,
Thanks for taking care of this. I have added a couple of notes to the wiki that describe the Gtk+ work on actions and UI stuff.
Let me know if I've missed anything!
AV
On 7 April 2018 at 21:23, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...> wrote:
Thanks everyone for the favorable votes, I've updated the roadmap to reflect the consensus approach of an accelerated 1.0:
http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap
I broke out the 2geom packaging task to its own thing, and like discussed at the hackfest I'll take the action of working on getting a release out for it. I wasn't sure what version number to pick for it, and just picked 1.0 at random; I figure since we're targeting Inkscape 1.0, having 2geom at roughly the same version number will be sensible.
I'm reticent to pencil in even vague dates on that wiki page, but we've been considering doing what we're now calling 1.0alpha some time mid to late 2018, with 1.0-final being in 2019. If we can make good progress at crossing off items on the roadmap, the dates could be earlier.
Alex, I had some trouble remembering exactly what gtk3 work we decided to focus on for 1.0alpha and what to postpone to 1.1. Would you mind editing this wiki page and detailing a bit better what should be planned for when?
Tav, can you look at the other tasks outlined for 1.0alpha and let me know if it looks reasonable, or too much? All the stuff there seems like it would be best to get in for 1.0, but I'm uncertain if we have the right resources to tackle it so need some advice. Also, are there any priorities for the 1.0alpha release that I've missed, or that got moved to 1.1 but should be in 1.0?
We talked about working on test cases, and I took the action to split up migration of old test cases amongst active developers. I'll do that in the next few weeks. We also need the distcheck target set up (I'll do it at some point if no one beats me). There have also been scattered reports of various bad performance problems, so we should look into any easy fixes that don't risk too much disruption of internals.
Thanks, Bryce
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:49:43PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
One of the items scheduled for today was a review of the roadmap, looking both at the next development release, and the path to releasing 1.0.
With the change to gtk3, we anticipate there may be some behavioral or functional changes that users may not find desireable, but that we may not discover until the release gets into widespread use, so it has been our plan to message this development release (which we have referred to as 0.93) as more "experimental" than 0.92, and continue releases on the 0.92.x series for them.
Even with this messaging, though, we worry that distributors of our software may push 0.93 as the latest release, and fail to adequately provide the 0.92.x series to users that wish to maximize stability.
So, one idea discussed today would refer to this development release not as "inkscape 0.93" but as either "inkscape 1.0~alpha" or "inkscape 1.0~pre0", and treat it not as a regular release but as an alpha release for 1.0. From there we could conduct multiple further pre-releases building towards a 1.0 release in, say, a 1-year timeframe. What do you think of this change in versioning nomenclature?
Regardless of how we version the releases, there was a concensus among attendees to sharpen our focus towards achieving the 1.0 release expediously, prioritizing stabilization, testing, and documentation efforts. Apart from a limited set of development tasks targeted for 1.0, most development would be strongly encouraged to be done in branches with merge deferred to post-1.0.
As requested at the hackfest, I'll take the action to itemize a listing of tests needing written or ported from the old test system, and divvying them out to currently active developers willing to take care of them.
For development work that does target landing in 1.0, we would require or at least urge the work be done in a manner that permits disabling or reverting it if testing finds it to be insufficiently stable.
I am pretty open as to what we call the pre-1.0 releases, and would like to gather more people's thoughts before deciding a path forward. So, how does this plan sound to you?
Bryce
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
participants (9)
-
Alex Valavanis -
Bryce Harrington -
Christoffer Holmstedt -
Grady Broyles -
Martin Owens -
Miguel Lopez -
Ryan Gorley -
Ted Gould -
Victor Westmann