Re: branching for release?

[Søren Hauberg]

ons, 19 01 2011 kl. 06:38 -0500, skrev John W. Eaton:
> On 18-Jan-2011, John W. Eaton wrote:
> 
> | If we were to release today with the current sources, are there any
> | mind blowingly obvious problems that will affect nearly everyone who
> | runs Octave?
> 
> I think we should rename the "backend" function.  The name "backend"
> by itself does not give me any clue that this function has anything
> to do with graphics.
> 
> I know this is not really a problem in the sense that it causes a crash
> or incorrect result, but it is something taht is important because this
> is a name that will likely be fairly widely used, so we should try to
> get it right before a real release happens.
> 
> How about a more descriptive name like
> 
>   X_Y
> 
> where X is one of graphics, plot, plotting, graphical, or similar and
> Y is one of engine, renderer, toolkit, or similar.
> 
> Does anyone have a strong preference?

I agree, but don't really have strong preference.

> Having it begin with plot will make it more likely to be seen by anyone
> using command completion on plot, but other than that, I'm not sure any
> one of these options jumps out at me as being the clear winner.  But I
> do feel strongly that "backend" alone is not so good.

I hope that someday we'll also be able to create simple GUI's using
FLTK/GTK/QT/whatever, so I don't think 'plotting_backend' is the right
word. We seem to always call it a "Graphics backend", so why not just
stick to that word, i.e., "graphics_backend" ?

> Also, did I mention this before?  I thought I did, but I can't find a
> message about it now.

I'm pretty sure you did, but I don't remember where or when.

Søren