2009/2/28 Alexandre Julliard <julli...@winehq.org>: > Ben Klein <shackl...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I don't see a 1.0.2 being developed though. I'm sure there are still a >> lot of bugs that could be fixed in 1.0.1 - correct me if I'm wrong >> here. > > I don't see a lot of bugs that could be fixed by changes small enough to > go into the stable branch. If you do, please build a list and if there > are enough of them we can certainly do a 1.0.2. > >> But I based my statement on the fact that many users on #winehq >> have come in with a problem in 1.0.1, and upgrading to the latest >> available development version fixes their problem. > > Sure, if 1.0.1 doesn't work, then trying the tip is a good idea, but > that doesn't mean that everybody should do that. There are regressions > in the tip, and there's no reason to push users to upgrade unless they > clearly have trouble with 1.0.1.
Now as this is *your* project, AJ, what do you think? Should stable branch be supported better by AppDB/bugzilla etc? At the moment, 1.0.1 is considered "too old" in some cases. The following quotes are from the start of this thread: 2009/2/26 Ben Klein <shackl...@gmail.com>: > 2009/2/26 Dan Kegel <d...@kegel.com>: >> Our currently released version is 1.0, but the appdb's >> browse feature acts as if that version no longer exists. >> This will seriously confuse newcomers who are using >> the 1.0.1 version (e.g. anybody who installs a fresh >> copy of Ubuntu!). >> >> To fix this, we should add 1.0 (or 1.0.1) back into the search box in >> http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application > > Someone mentioned on another thread (or possibly on IRC, I don't > recall) that 1.0-series is too old to be of concern to us. We don't > want test data for 1.0.x; we don't want bug reports for 1.0.x unless > they're still apparent in the development version. Development has > stopped on 1.0.x. Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's what it looks like from current AppDB and bugzilla status.
