[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On March 25, 2010, Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:
> On March 25, 2010, Peter Wang wrote:
> > On 2010-03-24, Evert Glebbeek <eglebbk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 24 Mar 2010, at 11:53 , Elias Pschernig wrote:
> > > > One feature I think we still need:
> > > >
> > > > - Capabilities querying API. Among others it should report:
> > > >
> > > > ALLEGRO_HAVE_SET_BITMAP_TARGET
> > > >
> > > > If this is not available, al_set_target_bitmap cannot be
> > > > (reasonably) used except for using our software rasterizer for
> > > > drawing to memory bitmaps.
> > > >
> > > > ALLEGRO_HAVE_SET_SEPARATE_ALPHA_BLENDER
> > > >
> > > > If this is not available, al_set_separate_blender cannot be used
> > > > (it will just ignore the alpha values passed in and work like
> > > > al_set_blender otherwise).
> > >
> > > Ok.
> > > Shouldn't be hard to add, right?
> >
> > ALLEGRO_HAVE_ is used for the build system so better rename it to
> > ALLEGRO_CAP_* or something.
> >
> > > > Dario (I think) seems to have hit a stumbling block with enabling
> > > > texture stages or something. It would be really nice to have of
> > > > course, but we could release 5.0 without it.
> > >
> > > I think we can import it without that and worry about it after that.
> > > Ok, so it'a not bug-free. If we let it sit, it'll just bit-rot.
> > > Or we take the position that it should be a separate addon.
> >
> > It's too late for this. Leave it for 5.2.
>
> Or earlier, I'm not sure why addons can't be added in minor releases.
>
> > Peter
> >
And on the subject of releases, should the monthly release schedule be kept
up for minor releases? And what constitutes a good enough reason to
increment the major (ie the x in 5.x) version?
Lately in open source, regularly scheduled, 1-6 month releases seem to be
popular, and really seem to contribute to the health of the project.
Can allegro try a new major version (5.2,5.4, etc) every 6 months regardless
if theres an actual major change?[1] And a new incremental (5.x.n) every
month, or every two months?
Constant and regular releases does seem to affect the overall health of
opensource projects. I think it has to do with perception more than
anything, the project doesn't seem dead, so people are more willing to give
it a shot. And not sitting on bugfixes because they don't seem important
enough at the time to make a full release makes sure people won't get them
when they need them, seems like a good idea, even if it means a incremental
release has one or two fixes. Along these lines, maybe the "release manager"
should alternate each time, so people don't get bored, or burned out. Maybe
too much for a smaller project, I'm not sure, but I can't see it being a bad
thing.
* 1. if monthly, or bimonthly releases are made I can see things picking up
a little, which should mean actual major changes should appear to make a new
major version increment not pointless.
just my $0.02
--
Thomas Fjellstrom
tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx