From: Marcus Sundberg <e94_msu@elixir.e.kth.se>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:36:33 +0200

Re: libggi release (was Re: libggi internals (Re: LibGGI3D RFC))

> > My plans for libggi is that when Andy gets back it'll take maybe
> > two weeks to set the API in stone.
> 
> Barring last minute changes, I think we should try to release some sort of
> libGGI (beta) as soon as Andy gets back.  I mean, fbcon is going to be
> official, should have a library to go with it too :-)

Why is everyone so obsessed with releases?
Releasing something that isn't ready will only hurt our cause.
If people want to start coding for libggi they can just get a
snapshot.

> > Then a few more weeks to implement
> > it to 100% for the most common targets. After that it's time to relase
> 
> What do you mean by implementing it to 100% for most common targets?

Implementing the new graphtype scheme and correct GGI_AUTO/modesuggest
handling. Currently there's _no_ target that support's any of those
properly. (Try passing GT_PALETTE or GT_TRUECOLOR as graphtype and
try to find a target that won't fail...)

These _should_ work 100% for at least fbdev, X/Xlib, xf86dga and SVGAlib
before we make a release that we say is beta quality.
Remember that "beta" in the Unix OpenSource world means that it's
far more stable than most products in the M$ world ever gets...

> Maybe support some weird X modes, or ModeX DirectBuffer (is that
> "interleaved planar"?) ??

That is not so important. The important thing is that what is
suported works according to the API docs (which btw also needs
to be updated)

> It's gonna take a while to have targets support all libGGI features, and
> it's not "crucial" to have those working, so we shouldn't wait till it's
> 100% implemented before releasing.
> 
> > libggi Beta1, which will be announced on COLA. And I hope we can have
> > a rock-solid libggi 2.0.0 out by December, with a few targets possibly 
> > marked as "experimental".
> 
> I've thought it will be called 1.5, but 2.0 makes sense anyway since we've
> been doing major changes...

Defenitely. Actually I would like to call it 1.0, because that's what
it really is, but there seems to have been some version-number 
inflation back before I joined the GGI project...

//Marcus