Re: [Simulavr-devel] Plan for make a first release of simulavr

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden On
> Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:17 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Simulavr-devel] Plan for make a first release of simulavr
> 
> As Petr Hluzín wrote:
> 
> > My objection is still that the new simulavr is incomplete (the
> > existing features would have use for some polishing).
> 
> But well, this will always be the case.  In my opinion, the release
> is *long* overdue.
> 
> > If the polishing
> > is delayed, it will break people's stuff in next release.
> 
> Then, make this release 1.0, and if the next release really breaks to
> many things, name it 2.0.  This still leaves the option to continue
> 1.x on a branch if there's enough demand.
> 
> > Specially, the Python and TCL interface exposes all internals,
> > therefore any change may break some script.
> 
> How many people are really using that already?  Sometimes, it's just
> as easy as mentioning these interfaces as "preliminary".  I think most
> of those who really want a released software actually want to use the
> normal CLI of the simulator, and the GDB interface on top of that.
> 
> One of the F/OSS basic rules is "release frequently".
> 
> > A version 2.0.0 would suggest some kind of revolution. The
> > implementation language changed from C to C++ [...]
> 
> But that would already be covered well enough by the transition
> from 0.1 to 1.0.

I agree with Joerg, this is long overdue, and very much needed.

I'm curious: I haven't looked at simulavr in quite a while. The last, I looked 
the new source code could not be built for Windows (via Cygwin or MinGW). Is 
that still the case? Or can it be built for Windows?

Thanks,
Eric