Christophe Lejeune wrote:> Dear list members,
>
> I also agree: an intermediate version would be very appreciated.
>
Thanks all for your views. I think it is good practice for me to turn a
release out soon anyway, so you can comment on how the new features are
working, and where to go next, and track down bugs. It''ll be a series
of
''development'' releases, like the old 0.9.x series of weft.
So - I will make a call in a month or so''s time. If wxruby2 is looking
far enough along, then I''ll use that. Otherwise, it''ll have to
be an
intermediate release based on wxruby 0.6.0> Anyway, I am also sensible to the fact that such a release could be very
> time-consuming activity for Alex...
>
I really don''t mind putting time into the software. It''s just
frustrating when that time goes to working round old, buggy software
like wxruby 0.6.0, instead of developing usability, new features and
improving documentation.
Unfortunately the latter option (intermediate) is not going to improve
the installation problems for people on Linux. But I don''t know how to
fix the old version of wxruby, and I don''t think it''s a useful
way to
spend limited time if I did.
Perhaps if someone who''s persevered through the pain is prepared to
offer a wxruby.so binary for Linux weft-qda could be offered as a
bundle or distro package for Linux. Please contact me off
list...> The double-upgrade issue is also a question that have to be addressed.
Hopefully this might not be such an issue. I''m planning to make the
upgrading process force making a backup of the old version, to reduce
the risk of data loss.
alex