Jonathan Marsden wrote:
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
Good :)
Is there is list of all known release-critical bugs and TODO items
somewhere?
No, the bugtracker is clean now for critical 1.6.x changes, as far as I
know (right?). We're only fixing feedback we get on the RCs now.
The only outstanding issue of which I know is the link bug DM is working
on with osis2mod, but I'm about to tell him that he probably needs to
check the ordinal count of his returned ListKey in a different manner in
our osis2mod utility, so this probably won't be an API change. I think
we're just waiting now to bundle locales and v11n systems. No code
changes unless someone speaks up about something I've overlooked again.
There have now been several commits since 1.6.0RC2... (I'd
say exactly now many, but it wasn't tagged... :)
scr...@scribe-laptop:~/src/sword-1.6.0RC2$ svn log -r {`ls -l
configure|cut -f6 -d' '`}:HEAD http://crosswire.org/svn/sword/trunk
:)
is it perhaps time for an RC3 and a freeze on all non-essential changes until
we can get a
final 1.6 "out the door"??
Yeah, I'd say so. I'm about to head out to evening service at Church
since I slept in this morning :) and when I get back, if no one has
complained, we can bundle an RC3 and hopefully go out the door soon. I
don't consider locale or v11n data changes warrant for a new RC, so if
we only get those changes over the next couple days, let's shoot to
release a final on Tuesday evening PST.
(Creating a branch for the 1.6.0 release, so that new commits intended
for 1.6.1 could continue on svn head, would also work well, but that
doesn't seem to be the "SWORD way" of doing things).
:) Again, this release has undergone a little more testing than usual
as we're hoping to 'change our ways' with this BRANCH and force
ourselves to not do API changes in 1.6.x.
My plan is to continue to work on 1.6.x for a while (months), improving
speed, filters, and fixing any bugs, and actually USE 1.6.x in some of
my own apps for a while before starting any API-changing additional
features which will require a branch of HEAD to 1.6.x, and 1.7.x to
continue in HEAD at that point. I don't want to have to branch until we
necessarily start 1.7.x API-breaking changes; otherwise we have to keep
merging 1.6.x changes into HEAD, which would make the lines identical
till we start 1.7.x work anyway. Though we will definitely TAG 1.6.0
(which is the same as a branch anyway in svn-- if we need to change our
minds for some odd reason).
How's that for a plan?
-Troy.
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
