Though it is somewhat off topic
On 2019-10-24 18:38, Stefan Sperling wrote:
FreeBSD ships 1.10 as part of their base system (it would make sense for
them to stick to LTS).
Subversion in FreeBSD base system are only command line programs, which
link libsvn_* statically, and not depend on Py
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 02:46:39AM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Nathan Hartman wrote on Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 01:11:19 -0400:
> > James McCoy wrote:
> > > FWIW, since we switched to the new release model, I (in my capacity as
> > > packager for Debian) basically ignore non-LTS releases. It's easie
Nathan Hartman wrote on Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 01:11:19 -0400:
> James McCoy wrote:
> > FWIW, since we switched to the new release model, I (in my capacity as
> > packager for Debian) basically ignore non-LTS releases. It's easier to
> > ignore them, since I know I only want an LTS release in Debian
I'll respond to Mark, Julian, Stefan, and James below...
Mark Phippard wrote:
> I thought the frequent release/LTS plan was a worth a try, I just do
> not see where it is working out and yielding benefits.
I'd like to point out that I have made several proposals but was
(politely) reminded that w
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 01:35:45PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.10.2019 13:16, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> >> Nathan Hartman wrote:
> >> Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> > By the principle of least surprise, I think it
> >> > would be better to merge to trunk, creat
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:13:04AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I do not think the current 1.13 release is worth releasing. I think we
> should merge the Py 3 branch and release that as 1.13 once we think it is
> ready. That should essentially become the release we maintain until there
> is some
Julian's email reminded me I planned to reply to this one.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:59 AM Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:25:01AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > Yes. Go back to having new releases when there is enough interesting
> > content to justify the release. We ca
Stefan Sperling wrote:
[...] it sounds like we
are very close to having full support for Python 3 on trunk already or
will have it soon. Which means it will be ready in time for 1.14 LTS as
originally scheduled. Is that really not enough?
Stefan, thank you for articulating so clearly, especial
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:25:01AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Yes. Go back to having new releases when there is enough interesting
> content to justify the release. We can lower the bar from the old days.
> There does not need to always be a big ticket feature or two driving the
> release, but
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Julian Foad wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > I think it is just another example that "regular" releases are not
> appropriate for this project at this stage of its life with a lack of
> regular activity.
> [...]
> > Also, as brane already pointed out, this would
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:29 AM Julian Foad wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > Also, as brane already pointed out, this would also be making a mockery
> of regular releases.
>
I'll throw this wacky idea out there...
(With endless respect for everyone here, always.)
Suppose we backport the cont
Mark Phippard wrote:
I think it is just another example that "regular" releases are not appropriate
for this project at this stage of its life with a lack of regular activity.
[...]
Also, as brane already pointed out, this would also be making a mockery of
regular releases.
Mark, I do unde
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:35 PM Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.10.2019 13:16, Julian Foad wrote:
...
> > Surely the right approach is to release what we have got (the
> > currently soaking 1.13), then release the new one as soon as we can
> > get it ready. It sounds like it's not suitable for a patch
> On Oct 21, 2019, at 7:16 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>
> Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Nathan Hartman wrote:
>>Branko Čibej wrote:
>> > By the principle of least surprise, I think it
>> > would be better to merge to trunk, create a
>> > new 1.13.0 release candidate
>>+1
>> >
On 21.10.2019 13:16, Julian Foad wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Nathan Hartman wrote:
>> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> > By the principle of least surprise, I think it
>> > would be better to merge to trunk, create a
>> > new 1.13.0 release candidate
>>
>> +1
>>
>> > and (
Johan Corveleyn wrote:
Nathan Hartman wrote:
Branko Čibej wrote:
> By the principle of least surprise, I think it
> would be better to merge to trunk, create a
> new 1.13.0 release candidate
+1
> and (maybe?) restart the soak.
I support this idea even if the so
Op zo 20 okt. 2019 03:51 schreef Nathan Hartman :
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 2:11 PM Branko Čibej wrote:
> > By the principle of least surprise, I think it
> > would be better to merge to trunk, create a
> > new 1.13.0 release candidate
>
> +1
>
> > and (maybe?) restart the soak.
>
> I support thi
On 20.10.2019 04:05, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Nathan Hartman wrote on Sun, 20 Oct 2019 01:49 +00:00:
>> I support this idea even if the soak must restart or be extended.
> Brainstorming: How about letting the soak continue but documenting in
> the release notes, release announcements, etc., that we'l
Nathan Hartman wrote on Sun, 20 Oct 2019 01:49 +00:00:
> I support this idea even if the soak must restart or be extended.
Brainstorming: How about letting the soak continue but documenting in
the release notes, release announcements, etc., that we'll be adding swig-
py3 support in a patch release
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 2:11 PM Branko Čibej wrote:
> By the principle of least surprise, I think it
> would be better to merge to trunk, create a
> new 1.13.0 release candidate
+1
> and (maybe?) restart the soak.
I support this idea even if the soak must restart or be extended.
Rationale:
*
On 19.10.2019 12:06, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:23 AM Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Yasuhito FUTATSUKI wrote on Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 23:09:19 +0900:
>>> On 2019/10/16 21:12, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
This makes me wonder: should that be fixed specifically on trunk, and
nom
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:23 AM Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> Yasuhito FUTATSUKI wrote on Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 23:09:19 +0900:
> > On 2019/10/16 21:12, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > > This makes me wonder: should that be fixed specifically on trunk, and
> > > nominated for backport to 1.13, so we can poss
22 matches
Mail list logo
