Re: The Road to 1.0

[John Leuner]

I think it makes sense to release Classpath 1.0 when AWT is complete and
we provide most of Java 1.1.

The important part is not the version number though, it's filling in the
missing pieces and debugging them.

It would be nice if someone could write a TODO for the AWT and GTK peers
code.

John Leuner

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 01:07, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "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.
> 
> Aaron> o Get AWT working right and fix any other major holes in Java 1.1
> Aaron>   support, increment the version to something like 0.9, then start
> Aaron>   debugging towards 1.0
> 
> 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 took a quick look at classpath-vs-1.1 on the japi page.  We are
> really shockingly close; all those green bars are delightful.  The
> real question is how many of the comparison reports are there for
> compliance against some later JDK.  We'd have to tweak japi to do a
> 3-way diff to find out, I guess.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Aaron> The original thought was always that we'd target Java 1.1 as
> Aaron> our 1.0 release.  However, going into real release mode would
> Aaron> make it trickier to do development because of the implied
> Aaron> stability contract with users.
> 
> 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).
> 
> I'd rather not ever shut down the trunk.  There's no telling when
> someone will implement a package.  For instance, Michael Koch has been
> doing a lot of libgcj work lately.  Having a separate release branch
> means we can still accept his patches at a pretty high rate; the less
> certain of these can be put on the trunk only.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Classpath mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
-- 
John Leuner <address@hidden>