[GRASS5] GRASS 5.0.1 released
bernhard at intevation.de
Wed Jan 29 07:13:44 EST 2003
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:30:59AM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:06:42AM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:44:05AM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 07:46:19PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > > Thus 5.0.1 from the old release branch was just intermediate
> > > > and for critical bugs.
> > >
> > > Several important bugfixes didn't reach 5.0.1 due to the restrictions.
> > Well if they are really "important"
> > as a maintainer you could declare them critical.
> Please note that I am *one of* the maintainers.
Somebody should be the last to make or finalise decisions.
For GRASS 5.x that certainly is you. :)
> It's not possiblefor me to maintain 3xx modules.
It does not mean that you need to take all decisions yourself
or maintain each module, but you do know who to ask the right questions.
> I can only dedicate some fraction of
> a day to GRASS code maintenance like most developers.
> I have also to control the numerous mailing lists (grass-commit
> grass5, grassgui, nvizlist, sqlgrass, statsgrass, weblist, winGRASS)
> including spam protection, a bit of RT maintenance, the regular
> updates of the web pages (volunteers wanted also here!), the docs,
> the grass site, several cronjobs to generate snapshots, find bugs etc.
> I do not intend to complain, but time is really limited.
It is good that you again tell people
how many fine things you do for GRASS!
But I'm not targeting your time,
we need more helping hands!
> > Once you create a release branch from the CVS HEAD,
> ...someone, not me at time unless it is a single cvs command (which?).
It can easily be done,
but I have to look it up to be precise.
> > that should only exist a short period of time
> > and only get critical bugfixes.
> > It contains all bug fixes and minor feature enhancements
> > which were done after the last release branch was branched.
> We should be careful with opening and closing branches.
A branch is "declared" closed, not physically closed.
The commits should be watched by developers,
and reverted if they go on the wrong branch.
> Once we already had come confusion in 2001:
> when two branches were used in parallel.
That was a special condition araising
because we were not watching closely
and developers did not know.
> I just feel that most of the branch sync'ing has been done
> by Glynn so far. And we don't know if he wants to continue with
> that (he did a great job!).
I also applaud Glynn's work!
-------------- 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/20030129/dff5e4e9/attachment.bin
More information about the grass-dev