Re: The Road to 1.0

[Brian Jones]

Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:

> >>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron M Renn <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> Aaron> I think it is truly amazing how far Classpath has come in that time.
> Aaron> While Paul and I haven't exactly been major contributors over the last
> Aaron> year and a half, other folks have really stepped up to the plate.
> 
> If the originators can take an extended leave, and the project
> continues, then you know it is successful.  Congratulations -- you've
> managed to do something that is difficult and rare.

Just a small point, it's been 3 years Aaron!  If you're like me you're
wondering where all that time went and marveling at how fast time does
go by.  This bit from the JBoss website is appropriate...

"But remember, the better you are, the faster you will burn out. You
will burn out. We all do. And like that, ffff, you will be
gone. That's ok, 30% of our development is done on a "wham bam" basis,
come in do stuff, leave, we will remember you stranger now that you
are riding in the sunset. We never hear about you again. That's quite
alright (it is), if you want to play long run, pace yourself, do
something relaxing, take a break, smoke a doobie, just look at a
brighter day, heck! get out! leave your room!. Then stare back at the
furnace. Come back 2 month later and do stuff again. "

Quoted from http://www.jboss.org/developers/join.jsp.

> Outside of AWT, I suspect there won't be too much debugging to do.
> We've actually done a substantial amount of that, since people are
> already using Classpath for applications.

I'm not so optimistic.

> AWT really needs a lot of love.  There are parts missing (notably
> GridBagLayout -- maybe we can take Acunia's implementation though).
> There are known systemic bugs (there are many places that should
> acquire the tree lock that don't).  The peers aren't finished, and the
> parts that are there need to be ported to the latest Gtk (you can't
> even compile against Gtk 2) and are buggy besides.  The bright side is
> that enough works to play around with it.

Yes, I really want to work on the peers and AWT this year and the more
the merrier.

> When we get close enough, we can make a release branch with different
> rules.  For instance, we can promise VM-level API stability for all
> the releases in a given sequence (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, etc).

Yes, we will adopt a more complicated branch scheme just as gcj does
for releases that no longer qualify as "alpha" releases.

-- 
Brian Jones <address@hidden>