Joined: 04 Jun 2003
Location: Watsontown, PA
|Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 8:51 pm Post subject:
|The name itself really isn't as important as the fact that it's not SEAL 3. Whatever everybody likes is cool with me. If you guys like SealX, than so it is. Any objections? The bottom line is, SEAL 3.0 is really a long way off, and we're really not sure which code will be used at this point. It seems the general consensus is that the SEAL 2.x code is the preferred choice, so for now I say it stays. Again, feel free to develop on SealX if you wish, but for now we should definitely work on refining the Seal 2.0 code. You know, getting it cleaned up a bit and ready for progress.
So there it is, unless anyone objects, then the SEAL 3 code is now SealX, and we continue working on Seal 2.0. Right now, it should be cleaned up and the redraw and compiling issues should be worked out. I know this is a major task, but can I get any volunteers? Also, if I can get admin permission from avryhof on the SF site, I will post a help wanted to try to get some more programmers around here. It would be of great benefit to get some fresh eyes on the code and we may even be able to get some new ideas out of it. If nothing else, we could at least get some more regular discussion in the forum here (I get tired of reading the same posts over and over again ).
1. SealX, sounds good to me, anyone else?
2. Who wants to go swimming in the source code?
for open-source news and exclusive software