Re: branching for release?

[Ben Abbott]

On Jan 19, 2011, at 6:38 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:

> 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Also, should the current graphics engine/renderer/whatever that uses
> fltk and OpenGL be called just fltk or fltk_opengl?  I mean, it is not
> just fltk that we use, right?

I like "plot_engine" (not really a strong preference though).

"fltk_opengl" looks good to me as well.

Ben