Re: [AD] official beta (Re namespace again)

["Chris La Mantia" <celamantia@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Gillius" <gillius@xxxxxxxxxx>
> We've had Allegro 4.0 for months now.  The WIP should have been labeled
> official a very long time ago, perhaps when it worked in Windows 2000

> I believe that was the last OS to work).

Then let's label it 4.0 and be done with it!

> I would definately agree if 3.12 was compatable with the current WIP ,
> but IT IS NOT!  I've yet to find a single 3.12 program that works on 4
> due to compiler differences, and the needing to add window locks and
> END_OF_MAIN and many other things.  Mnay 3.12 programs have bugs that
> don't come out in DOS but crash in Windows or Linux, or use DJGPP
> specific headers.
>
> Even with vanilla Allegro code, there are still changes in Allegro from
> 3.12 and in other OS/compiler you typically will get loads of warnings
> or errors from compiler differences they will have to fix anyways.

So why add more things they have to fix?  The bottom line is that the
"official" word is that "3.12 is the latest stable release".  You know and I
know that the last dozen WIPs are more stable than 3.12.  So why should we
keep it to ourselves?

> Personally I think correctness over convience is the important thing.
> You have to do what you have to do to make it correct, and the truth is
> that the Allegro API is in someways broken.

This smacks of Linuxist elitism.  What we currently have is more stable and
more functional that what the general masses think is the stable official
version.  So let's just label the most stable recent WIP as 4.0, and you can
go back to the Linuxization of Allegro.

--Chris