[GRASS5] Update: 5.0.3-cvs -> 5.3.0-cvs
bernhard at intevation.de
Fri Sep 12 11:12:50 EDT 2003
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 01:24:19AM +1200, Hamish wrote:
> > The current (and desired) situation is now:
> > We have
> > - 5.0.3 release_branch (RC3 at time, waiting for release)
> > - 5.3.0-cvs: new PROJ engine, modified NVIZ, G3D updated
> > tons of fixes
> > - 5.7.0-cvs: former 5.1, new vector engine, DBMS support etc
> > The 5.7.0-cvs instructions should refer to 5.3.0, I tried to
> > update the relevant texts such as INSTALL etc.
> > Please make further updates if needed.
> > After getting 5.0.3 out of the door we should consider a
> > first 5.3.0 and also 5.7.0 release.
> I apologize for bringing up more meaningless version number debates,
> but why 5.3.0 and not 5.3.9? Why not 5.4.0pre1? 5.3.0 seems many
> releases away from 5.4.0 (even though the distance is meaningless).
After 5.3.9 comes 5.3.10, so that would not help much ... :)
We actually want to have more experimental releases more directly
from the CVS tree. So it is fine to assume we might have 5.0.4.
5.3.1 5.3.2 and a few more.
> Is 5.4.0 really that far off? What's missing besides testing, testing,
We don't know, only testing can tell,
but according to software engineering that takes up more then 50%
of the actually software construct efforts, so yes I believe 5.4.0
is a bit away.
> Is there a list of critical bugs that need to be fixed before
> release? (e.g. NVIZ/Tk 8.4 on some systems; OSX & solaris build
> problems; r.terraflow CVS update) Is there any major missing
> code or subsystems?
We should put bugs in the bugtracker
and quite some of them are in there.
So they probably need categorisation.
> By the same argument, what's missing before a 5.7.0-experimental
> release and grass51 CVS moving to 5.7.1? (yes, code merge- wait just
> until 5.4.0 is out & thus in buxfixe only mode?) Is it too much to
> unwind the 'make mix' symlinks and make a source-only 5.7.0 release now?
> (I guess that means no CVS checkout of 5.7.0 and not a very good idea)
There was a plan once, before the new roadmap came out.
Dig in the mailinglist archives.
> If we do a merge early before, 5.4.0 is out, applying changes to both
> trees is double the work, a pain, and bug prone. The sooner 5.4.0 is out
> and all new changes go to the 5.7 branch the better, I think.
Yes, but there never was enough help to actually control other
developers to not add non-critical bug fixes to the other branches.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20030912/3d48006e/attachment.bin
More information about the grass-dev