[GRASS5] GRASS 5.0.1 released

[Bernhard Reiter]

It was always the idea to stablise the 5.0 HEAD branch,
and release 5.0.1 from a fresh release branch.
We still should do this.

Thus 5.0.1 from the old release branch was just intermediate
and for critical bugs. Thus we should go for 5.0.2 from 5.0 CVS HEAD.

And it is okay to fix real non-critical bugs for a 
in a 5.0.x release, but not if a release branch has been created.

So if all bugs are fixed, make a release branch for 5.0.2.
On this release branch, please only fix critical_bugs.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 05:01:20PM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 10:36:41AM -0500, Helena wrote:
> > What is the point of releasing 5.0.1 - the fixes there are really 
> > minimal (at least accordining to the news) while the important ones 
> > were not included. 

> You are right. There is not much point in releasing 5.0.1 (only when it
> were done already in October after finding the MacOSX bugs). But some
> team members didn't like that idea - Glynn and me proposed several
> times to release it...

> [Sidenote: IMHO the definition of "critical bug" does not apply to
>  GRASS 5.0.x. As we have modular commands, what means "critial"?
>  Maybe when talking about library bugs, we can call them critial.
>  But commands cannot be in a critial state in general, it much
>  depends on personal preference/needs. If my prefered command(s)
>  do not work, that's critical, but just for me.
>  This definition seems to somewhat slow down the release frequency!
>  See e.g.
>   http://grass.itc.it/pipermail/grass5/2002-October/004152.html
>  ]

The rule to only fix release critical bugs on a release branch
in itself is fine. 
We just have to go for a fresh release from the CVS HEAD sooner
which should be about bug fixes and minor feature enhancements only
anyway.

> Also part of the NVIZ updates are missing (etc). I released 5.0.1 in order
> to avoid that these minimal changes are published even later which were
> ridiculous. After the revert of the d.legend changes I became careful in
> sync'ing the release_branch.

> At time 5.0.1 and the CVS experimental differ quite a bit, a somewhat
> unpleasant situation. 

Well that should be fine as 5.0 CVS HEAD continued development.
Now that has to be made stable.

> Conclusion: Please *test* the current experimental version, e.g. r.mapcalc,
>   e.g. the new datum transform feature etc. And please post your experiences
>   here (or we never know whether a change was successful or not).

You mean the 5.0 CVS HEAD. :)
That is not entirely experimental as this 5.0 CVS tree
should be the more stable CVS tree.
5.1 CVS should be real experimental.

>   Unfortunately most discussions on improvements (such as changing the
>   raster storage to some useful directly structure, 5.1 issues etc.) die
>   quickly without results.

This mostly means that the improvement can be delayed,
because most people don't care. 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20030128/82bf8aab/attachment.bin