On 29.03.2007 10:55, Lars Clausen wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 08:55 +0200, Hans Breuer wrote: >> On 28.03.2007 22:36, Lars Clausen wrote: [...] >>> Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with the prereleases. >> Me too ;-) May I suggest to at least slowdown (preview|bugfix) releases >> enough that there is some more time to find, report and fix bugs? > > You mean three months isn't enough? Either we're just unlucky, or > there's just too few people trying the pres to get out to enough > corners. > Probably both. And there may even be people taking prereleases not anymore serious if the number is high enough.
>>> There's *always* serious bugs being found right after release anyway. I >>> could >>> cut it down to maybe one or two pres, giving a few folks time to make a >>> sanity check, then release and get about the same result. >>> >> >From my experience there will always be one more serious bug, but sometimes >> just documenting it is better than hurrying just another release. > > I'm not worried about putting out too many releases, it's the time spent > between them that seems silly. But exactly that time is IMO needed to not have prereleases skipped by people who want to look at them but are not that fast ... > Steffen and I have releasing down to a > fairly fast process by now, and with the web pages on a wiki, those can > get updated much faster too. So I'd prefer to have the prereleases be a > sanity check and just deal more with having post-releases while we > develop the next cool thing. > We should definitely improve our releases process by doing less prereleases and branching earlier. From my understanding nothing holds us to open the trunk earlier and give potential testers more time to test releases made from a branch. >>> Anyway, I have reproduced the bug, it appears to be caused by shapes >>> finding text ascent in old-fashioned ways. I have a fix for it, but >>> need to make sure I base it off of the right revision from SVN (not too >>> used to SVN yet). >>> >> I did not find any commit of you in >> svn+ssh://svn.gnome.org/svn/dia/branches/dia-0-96 >> (naming convention following e.g. gtk+ and gimp pratice, also used for >> dia-0-95) >> >> but there was one in >> svn+ssh://svn.gnome.org/svn/dia/branches/dia_0_96 >> >> Should we merge that in dia-0-96 or do we really want to introduce a >> different naming convention? > > I was just following the documentation at > http://developer.gnome.org/tools/svn.html -- I didn't know there was a > dia-0-95 branch in SVN (fairly new to SVN still), how do you check what > branches there are? > I'm using toirtoise svn (AFAIK windoze only). But other SVN GUI should be able to show these as well. The organization by convention is .../trunk : HEAD .../branches /dia-0-95 : former stable/release branch /dia-0-96 : current release branch .../tags : 'labels', by convention read-only other than that just a copy of a special revision /DIA_0_95 : just a copy of a specific revision There may be a command line option to list branches, but I can not find it at the moment. But there also is some nice web access, see: http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/dia/branches/ Have fun, Hans -------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org ----------- Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it. -- Dilbert _______________________________________________ Dia-list mailing list Dia-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia
