[GRASS5] Let's release 5.4 asap
michael.barton at asu.edu
Thu Sep 30 16:32:48 EDT 2004
If I can put in a small 2 cent's worth, I agree with Bernhard.
Let's go with 5.4 and call it the stable, current release. Keep it open for
bug fixes. For example, I need to fix a few tcltkgrass modules that have
flags with the command lines. But this is a bug fix, not a new feature. I
also agree with Markus about getting rid of the 5.3/5.7 merge procedure.
This complicates updating 5.7 as well as making it confusing for people who
want to compile current CVS versions.
5.0.x can be prior, old, or outdated stable release. (Really need to change
the installation instructions for Cygwin). We don't have to remove it, just
label it appropriately to discourage people from using it--especially new
users without a prior investment in 5.0.
5.7 should go to testing or beta. The rationale is that it is far from an
unstable or even alpha release. It is actually more stable than many
commercial products. However, it is undergoing active development. In any
case, people should not be discouraged from using it by how it is classed,
but be encouraged to do so as much as possible.
On 9/30/04 9:42 AM, "Bernhard Reiter" <bernhard at intevation.de> wrote:
> Hello Markus,
> I agree with your assessment that a new stable release is needed
> as not much bugfixing is going on for 5.0.x and having three
> versions out is not the best solution.
> Not having tried 5.3.x much, I cannot evalutate its stability.
> Assuming that user feedback is fine we should make it 5.4.0
> and then aim for bug-fix releases.
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 04:56:34PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 03:32:15PM +0100, Paul Kelly wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Markus Neteler wrote:
>> Many GRASS users seem to be very conservative concerning version
>> numbers. I asked several people in Bangkok why they used 5.0.x
>> and then presented long lists of problems in their conclusions
>> (most of them are already solved in 5.3/5.7). They answered that
>> the web pages indicate 5.3 only as testing but 5.0 is indicated
>> as stable.
>>> Straight away we could delete 5.0 from the list on the
>>> front page leaving only 5.3 and 5.7 I think.
>> I'll do that if there aren't objections.
> No, please do not reduce the choice of people, it will hurt them.
> I suggest to use slightly better wording and get 5.4.0 out.
> If somebody has ongoing work on 5.0.x and wants to be even more
> conservative, he needs to be able to still find 5.0.x, even when
> it is not the recommended stable version anymore.
>>>> Software can always be better. Waiting with a 5.4 release doesn't
>>>> make sense as open things are not going to be solved in the
>>>> near future (shared libs on Mac etc). So, please, let's get 5.4
>>>> out and "downgrade" 5.0 in it's importance.
> For me the criteria would be is 5.4.0 as stable as 5.0.x.
> I understand from you that this is the case, thus we can go to 5.4.0.
>>> The thing is that once 5.4 is released we are going to stop CVS access to
>>> the grass repository and only work on 5.7. But considering people are
>>> going to be going on using 5.3 for many many years we still need to fix
>>> everything that was added since 5.0 but is not finished yet.
> We need to keep open CVS for bug fixes on 5.4.x anyway.
> A stable version needs to be actively maintained by common standards.
> But new features should go into 5.7 then.
>>>> To have 3 versions on the web site is considered to be very
>>>> confusing (I heard that many times the last weeks).
>>> Well we can take 5.0 off right now I think.
>> It should also disappear from the download page then.
> As written above: I do not like the idea to have it disappear.
>>> I think it will greatly reduce the volume of annoying complaints from
>>> people in the future if we make sure what's there now works, before 5.4.
>> Mmh. So we better do not look at the bugtracker.
> At least browsing for release critical bugs probably is a good thing to so.
> (Otherwise complains might be higher resulting in more work.)
>> Again, we need a new version soon which can be called "stable" according
>> to the version number. After a 5.4 release bugfixing is obviously possible.
>> But why adding new features to 5.4 if 5.7 is already there? With 10 more
>> developers it might be feasible to maintain two versions but currently...
> I share that notion.
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human Diversity and Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
voice: 480-965-6262; fax: 480-965-7671
More information about the grass-dev