hugin

[Frederic]

On Friday 18 April 2003 11:13, Pablo d'Angelo wrote:

> I appreciate every help I can get, but at the moment I haven't decided
> if I'll develop hugin further or if I'll join the ptopengui project. I
> posted the other mail to their development list <ptx at email-lists.org>
> as well, to see what they think. Probably we should cc our mails to
> that list as well. I didn't post this mail there because I didn't know
> if you want to post there. Please tell me if I can post your mail and
> my reply to that list.

I didn't know that <ptx at email-lists.org> was the address of the ptopengui 
list. I've just posted my first message there, but I don't know if I have 
the right (I didn't receive an error from the robot for 2 hours, so...). I 
also posted this one there.

> I do not want to create several projects because of a different GUI
> toolkit. I'll wait for the response of the ptopengui guys and decide
> then.

As the major part of the project consists in a graphical interface (most of 
the job is done within the Pano Tools), I think that the GUI toolkit is 
very important. Even if Qt as restricted license for other OS than Linux, 
it offers some better features than wxWindow (ex: possibility to detach 
windows, very usefull when working on several screens, feature missing 
under wxWindow, as far as I know).

> I've used the Rational Unified Process for a 5 people project at the
> university, and I don't think it that it'll fit onto an opensource
> project. Way to much organizational stuff (we spend a lot of time on
> writing stupid documents, that didn't have any real value).
>
> As long as the team is only small, an more code based process (some
> parts of XP, like automateded tests) fits better. Obviously there will
> be iterations where we add new features, and discussions about the
> design at the beginning of an iteration. but I don't want to play
> project manager and create gnatt charts for them etc.

My idea was not to write all that !@@#$% documents (I don't really know 
what they are, because we don't use them, here). Just to take the good 
ideas from Unified Process, and forget heavy things.

> Oh, I think that together is a nice pice of software, but its unusable
> on my laptop with only 128 MB memory. umbrello seems to crash at
> startup, but I think that is/was a problem created by with the debian
> library chaos when they moved to 3.2.

Together needs too much resources !!! We have a bi-processor to run it, and 
very fast ethernet connections; and it is still quiet slow :o( When it 
does not crashes !!! I don't like Java apps...

> sofar I haven't used a design tool, because the classes and their
> interactions still fitted into my head. UML is definately nice to give
> other developers an idea how stuff is supposed to work together.
>
> I think an overview UML diagram and some doxygen (www.doxygen.org)
> created documentation the main things we need.

I agree.

> missed an include, I can compile it with 2.95 now (but obviously not
> link, because of the diffrent name mangling of gcc 2.95 and 3.2).

Thank you for the fix. It works now.

-- 
   Frederic

   http://www.gbiloba.org