[Uim] Towards 1.0

[TOKUNAGA Hiroyuki]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:14:35 +0900
YamaKen <yamaken at bp.iij4u.or.jp> wrote:

> At Sat, 6 Aug 2005 01:28:35 +0900,
> tkng at xem.jp wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:27:41 +0900
> > YamaKen <yamaken at bp.iij4u.or.jp> wrote:
> > > At Wed, 3 Aug 2005 03:34:55 +0900,
> > > tkng at xem.jp wrote:
> > > > * In 0.5 series (Sep to Oct 2005, hopefully)
> > > > 
> > > >  - Introduce SigScheme
> > > >  - Improve key event handling. This will need extension of
> > > > libuim API.
> > > >  - Improve inter process communication.
> > > 
> > > I strongly recommend deferring the latter two features to next
> > > development season (aka 0.7).
> > > 
> > > Since considerable amount of Scheme codes of uim do not have
> > > testsuites to ensure valid execution, it will be achieved by
> > > hands and eyes of users and developers. To limit number of
> > > doubtful factors causing bugs in such situation, code changes
> > > other than SigScheme migration should be minimized.
> > > 
> > > Yes, the two features themselves are not so complex. But they
> > > may cause combinational explosion of doubtful codes by involving
> > > the SigScheme migration. I prefer strengthening quality
> > > assurance by the conservative development way.
> > 
> > SigScheme and other other big change will not be introduced at the
> > same time. For me, this seems safe enough.
> 
> Separating big changes from each other by time is a good
> practice. But it's insufficient without a release cycle.
> 
> A stable release is required once the migration to SigScheme has
> done, to validate all behaviors of all IMs on all platforms are
> kept. Since considerable amount of scm/*.scm does not have
> testsuites, only hands and eyes of users and developers can
> validate it.
> 
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Releasing a stable uim is the only one method to call for     |
> | sufficient number of the hands and eyes. Otherwise it will be |
> | insufficient.                                                 |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+

That's one insight, but I don't think so. IMHO the number of testers
depends on the degree of activity of developers. I believe that if I
reply bug reports quickly, we will be able to get enough testers.

> > If SigScheme is unstable, then I'll cancel merging SigScheme
> > on 0.5 series.
> 
> No, no. What I worried about is not SigScheme stability itself.
> The most doubtful factor is the insufficient R5RS compliance of
> Scheme codes of uim (i.e. scm/*.scm) that have no
> testsuites. For instance, rk.scm has the problem.
> 
> We already have the two major unstabilizing factors, SigScheme
> stability and R5RS compliance of scm/*.scm. So I simply don't
> want more than them in a stable release.

I understand, but 'In this stable release SigScheme was introduced, but
nothing other was changed!' would not be attractive for users. They
would not want to upgrade to such new version.


Regards,

-- 
TOKUNAGA Hiroyuki
tkng at xem jp