[GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.1.0 release preparation

[Hamish]

Markus wrote:

> Hi developers,
> 
> I think that the current GRASS 6.1-CVS is in a good condition
> to be released as GRASS 6.1.0. This will pave the way for
> GRASS 6.2.0 (stable) which may follow shortly.

horray!
(outstanding issues for me: fix ps.map vlegend patterns bug and finish
last i.vpoints details)

recycled comments:
Currently 6.0.2. is the most recent release (22 Feb 2006), but the last
release including new features was 6.0.0 (10 March 2005). But that had
a feature freeze since 1 Jan 2005(?). So as far as stable users are
concerned we haven't added a single new feature since late 2004. I am
sure you will agree that there have been some improvements since then!

we did a similar 5.7.0 development release:
 http://grass.ibiblio.org/announces/announce_grass570.html

Besides it generally being a good idea; and too long since the last; it
is important to have a known delta to check against when reworking a
major library (eg display drivers); the Debian package freeze is fast
approaching and they will only package a point release.

Plus support for 64bit, TclTk 8.4, FFTW2, etc etc.. support which 6.0
doesn't have, but many new systems use. e.g. recent troubles as Fedora
Core 5 doesn't ship Tcl/Tk 8.3 anymore.


> I would suggest to branch off a 6.1.0 branch in CVS to
> not kill momentum in the HEAD. Important fixes can then
> be merged if needed. From that branch we get out one or
> two beta tarballs, then release candidates and finally
> the 6.1.0 version.

is a full branch really needed? I don't think it is much to declare a
"freeze" for two weeks and just tag beta1 now, beta2 in 1 week, and
6.1.0 in two weeks. I guess my real question is do we want to provide
support the 6.1.0 line? If so, a branch is fine, if not I suggest we
freeze HEAD and use tags.


> If there are no objections, I'll branch right away.
> Development continues in HEAD as before and we can
> extract a first 6.1.0beta for packagers and testers.
> 
> Further discussion:
> * The x11-less GRASS can be developed in HEAD, we should
>   not wait for that. We can have 6.1.1 if desired in near
>   future. The same applies to the georectifier.
>
> * NVIZ/Mac issues we can port from HEAD if they get fixed.
>   Apparently it's more related to openGL than GRASS.
> 
> * snprintf(): much discussion, no result. We can backport
>   once it happens.

all this is fine with me.

> * other open issues which are *really* showstoppers for
>   a 6.1.0 unstable release?

no major issues I know of. If any exist, they should be given a high
priority and thus be at the top of this list:

http://intevation.de/rt/webrt?q_sort=priority&q_reverse=1&q_queue=grass


> An announcement is drafted at
>  http://grass.itc.it/announces/announce_grass610.html
> The list of changes should be almost up to date, please
> review and add missing items. Also the wording of the
> first part could be more press release like.

re. the first part:  (I'm no press release writer, but..)

"A feature release"
I have no idea what this means vs. a "new release". 5.7.0 was a
"development preview release" -- do you think that is too scary?


"is a Geographical Information System (GIS) used for data management,
image processing, graphics production, spatial modeling, and
visualization of raster, vector and sites data."

Using "data management" as first point is boring and not to the point of
GRASS. Rename "sites data"? (keep idea)

.. ok, reading on I see it needs work .. I'll try to put obvious fixes
in CVS rather than commenting here.

* is the updates section from cvs2cl.pl or from memory? (more eyes needed?)

* we should update roadmap.html before final 6.1.0 release.


Nicholas wrote:
>   Selected Bugfixes (see ChangeLog for details)
>
>    - Source code quality/libraries:
>       - GRASS is now ANSI C compliant
>       - Ported natively to MS-Windows (MinGW based)
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Actually points to a page (owned by Markus Neteler) that
> points to a page for downloading QGIS.

>       - GRASS is now ANSI C compliant
is this 100% true?

>       - Ported natively to MS-Windows (MinGW based)
maybe change to "Raster and vector engines ported to native MS-Windows
(MinGW based). GUI access available using QGIS."
?



Hamish