[Scummvm-devel] ScummVM 1.4.0 soon?

[Max Horn]

Am 08.03.2011 um 15:14 schrieb John Willis:

[ Eugene wrote: ]

>> Hi Team,
>> 
>> I am back from the business trip, and now thinking about starting a
> release
>> cycle soon.
> 
> I assume we skipped 1.3 for superstitious reasons ;)

A simple typo, I'd say :).


> 
>> Thus, I am curious about status of following things, mainly when do you
>> guys think they could be ready, so I could postpone the release for the
> sake
>> of these features:
>> 
>>  - Myst
>>  - Riven
>>  - Hugo (I know I owe piece of code there, anything else?)
>>  - Android port
>>  - iOS port
>>  - OpenGL backend
>>  - translation status (any luck with Greek, md5?)
> 
> I would LOVE to see the culmination of Andre and Gus's work on the Android
> backend come to its logical conclusion and give us a definitive 'official'
> release that we can push on the market etc.

This is actually a critical point -- Angus, we *really* could need a reply from you regarding the Android app market account. 


> 
> Reading Oystein's recent mail, it also strikes me that the iOS backend just
> needs some TLC, not sure who can do that mind you ;). 

We should start searching for (a) volunteer(s) to help with this ASAP, e.g. via a NEWS item and a forum post. Anybody willing to whip something up?

> The WinCE build in trunk also seems to be buildable; I have got it building
> but have not had much chance to test it or work on any issues, I could do
> the builds but little else. Is there an appetite for WinCE releases?

Cerian showed up last night on IRC, and thanks to him, we now have a mostly working WinCE port again (SCI seems to suffer from a compiler bug, or something like that). A release with a WinCE build sure would be nice. Maybe Cerian is willing to join the team as WinCE maintainer. In addition, LordHoto has a WinCE device and a toolchain setup, so maybe he, too, can work on it... :)


> I would suggest that the OpenGL work is kept disabled for this release cycle
> for the SDL backend and is only enabled in specific backends where is may be
> needed/desireable.

Some people seem to eagerly await it for its ability to do arbitrary scaling... Any particular reasons to disable it ? I am not contesting this, it just would be nice to know the reason(s) :).


> 
> Additionally, all my backends are in need of a little TLC and I have been
> slowly hacking them into shape recently (I'll push my branch up when they
> are all working well again).

I actually was meaning to email you about that -- it's a bit annoying to have those builds fail day after day :). Are you working on this in a (maybe even public?) git fork of the repository? 


Cheers,
Max