[GRASS5] The status of 5.0

[Markus Neteler]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 04:22:39PM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 02:26:06PM +0000, Glynn Clements wrote:
> > 
> > Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > (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?
> > 
> > 	releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0_DEAD
> > 
> > In any case, a branch tag doesn't refer to a fixed point in time, but
> > to the most recent version on that branch. Specific snapshots can be
> > obtained using the non-branch tags (pre3 etc).
> > 
> > Also, it is possible to obtain a snapshot of the head as of a specific
> > date using -D. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to combine -r and -D
> > to obtain a snapshot of a branch.
> > 
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > AFAICT, undefining HAVE_LIBINTL_H will completely disable the I18N
> > support. Maybe this should be done for building binary distributions.
> 
> I am not sure if this cutting of release branch *without* releasing
> GRASS was a shoot in the foot.
> 
> Glynn may remember that the merge back of release_branch some time ago
> deleted a set of new features added by Radim in v.out.shape and
> d.what.vect. How should Radim restore that now (beside the slightly 
> annoying extra work)? Also, now we definitly have the I18N/L10N in
> the next release branch source code.
> 
> A bit puzzled,
> 
>  Markus
> 
> PS: How can I somewhat automate the switch-on/switch-off of
> the cvs snapshot scripts? Looks like another tons of work for
> me, that the release branch is killed - rewriting scripts and
> cron jobs, rewriting web pages etc.

... as a followup:

While continuing to think about eventual advantages for *us* with
branching, there seems to be litte reason to continuing branching
(before crying, please read on).

We have used branches for one year now, with no real advantages but
a lot of extra work. The reason might be that we weren't using branches
as intended, but we have the limiting factor of a small team.

The previous way (4.x) of having x.y.module and x.y.module2 is
probably more obvious and less energy consuming.

We really have to think apart from all earlier discussion if we want
to continue like that (release branch) or better concentrate on
quick 5.0 fixing and enjoying 5.1.

At time I find branches a bit waste of time - the outcome is little.
To create/delete release branches more frequently will even consume
more of our energy.

Just my 0.02 Euro,

 Markus