[GRASS5] The status of 5.0

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 10:07:17AM +0000, Glynn Clements wrote:
> > Yes. Can you progress this?
> Done, AFAICT.

Cool.

> > > (possibly renaming
> > > the tag so that changes aren't committed to it inadvertently).
> > 
> > We have to slap developers on the wrist for committing changes to
> > this branch!!! They will have to put it in the right branch again.
> 
> I've renamed the tag, so any attempts to checkout, update or commit
> using the releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0 tag should fail.

Is this the right way?
People should be able the get versions from the  branch for historical 
purposes. What is the new name?

> 5. I18N/L10N of grass.postgresql/*, s.surf.rst (alex)

I'm not entirely convinced that we should put this in the GRASS5.0 tree.

> My reasoning is that, if we include the source code for the disabled
> modules, it may increase the chances of people fixing them. Otherwise,
> anyone considering fixing a module first has to obtain the code from
> CVS, which may discourage potential contributors.

As solution to this would be a "broken-or-unstable-modules" tarball.
This is better as people know which modules should be almost bugfree.
For people not knowing GRASS' archane build system it probably 
is the right way.  At least I do not want people to learn the GRASS
current build system as we hopefully will imrove it. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20020322/c478bfcb/attachment.bin