[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: branching for release?
From: |
Ben Abbott |
Subject: |
Re: branching for release? |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:50:50 -0500 |
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
Re: branching for release?, bpabbott, 2011/01/18
branching for release?, John W. Eaton, 2011/01/19