[GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.1.0 release preparation

Tue Jul 4 00:26:16 EDT 2006

On Jul 3, 2006, at 11:26 PM, Hamish wrote:

> 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?

v.in.ascii has a recently introduced bug that needs to be fixed  
before a release (#4769),
it does not read larger files anymore. For me and some other users it  
is a showstopper.
(Andy has provided a patch but it has some problem - so there is more  
work needed to get
this fixed.)

Some modules have problems running on 64bit (maybe that is also  
#4725? but it is for sure
#4546 and supposedly also r.sun - probably due to uninitialized  
variables).
I don't think that this should stop the release.
Also I believe that we should thoroughly test gis.m before release -
we were getting all kinds of error messages but I think that it all  
has been fixed by now.

Helena
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-dev at grass.itc.it
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev