[Scummvm-devel] 1.0 or not 1.0? (was: ScummVM 1.0.0 release schedule)

[Travis Howell]

Eugene Sandulenko wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:22:36 +1000
> Travis Howell <kirben at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> Personally, I would rather at least one more beta release, before
>> moving onto ScummVM 1.0. Which would give time, for other worthwhile
>> code (GSoC 2009 tasks, patches) to be integrated into trunk in the
>> meantime.
> As you correctly point out, the activity at testing period decreases
> with each release. Stretching this into many interim releases will not
> help it, on the contrary.

Yes, that was the main reason I wanted 16bit color support in the next 
release, in order to take advantage of the next public testing, rather 
than split into smaller separate public testing at first.

Daily snapshots of ScummVM SVN have been limited to only a few platforms 
in the past though, which meant many ports didn't get as much testing 
over a longer period of time. With buildbot that has expanded to cover 
many more platforms (with Dreamcast just added), so we definitely could 
  benefit from a longer time peroid before ScummVM 1.0. In order to give 
other platforms are much more thorough testing, over the time (several 
months) between this release cycle, and the next release of ScummVM.

>> Overall the addition of current 16bit color support, adds the
>> following HE games as completable or playable:
> It was mentioned in the past that we'd better release current feature
> set, and only /after that/ integrate 16-bit support. The main reason is
> our backend developers.

And as I mentioned before, the 16bit color support will be 'optional'. 
So it is still up the developer(s) of each port, to decide when it is 
the best time to add that feature to their port.