On Monday 23 April 2007 07:58, Robert Nelson wrote:
> For the Windows version, I have the new tray monitor application and removal
> of the old tray code. I also changed it to run using minimally privileged
OK, would you send me a patch against the current SVN? Since I was unaware
until a couple of days ago that you were working on this, it has not been
planned for version 2.2.0.
As a consequence, I would like to review the patch and then decide whether it
goes into this release or another release.
In the future, I would appreciate it if you would let me know early on when
you start working on a new project. It helps us plan where we are going.
> However I'm not sure what is the status of the Window version since you
> never replied to my last message.
I didn't reply to your previous message because I'm not interested in getting
into a dispute, and I feel that what I said was clear.
> Your stated reasons for dropping it aren't valid.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the above is not my opinion.
I gave specific reasons (mainly the fact that these other architectures draw
too heavily on my time). It is your right not to disagree, but the
consequences will be that the Windows servers will not move closer to being
supported, which is what I would like to see.
> You haven't shown any case of me not supporting the Windows service
> applications; your only example was a client bug (that wasn't in my area nor
> is it even proven to be a Windows specific problem).
You have put your finger right on the problem. Among quite a few other
things, there was a bug that was classified as a Windows bug. It was and
still is assigned to you. You responded to it. I consider it a critical
bug. You simply chose to ignore it without informing me -- thus throwing the
bug on my back. As I say, you are perfectly free to do so as you are not
being paid for this work, but my response to that sort of attitude is to
assume that there is not sufficient support for Windows.
> Your complaint of a lack of documentation doesn't apply since the services
> are almost identical to Linux.
Again, this is your opinion. In my opinion, the Windows server documentation
(and to a certain extent the client after the installation file location
changes) is not sufficiently documented for production status.
> The few differences are described in the
> README file. Even if you were unsatisfied with the documentation it isn't
> appropriate to wait until you have decided to drop it from the release
> before telling me.
I have to admit that this decision might seem a bit sudden to you, but on the
other hand, you have failed to understand how I work. Generally, I am rather
laid back about a certain level of deficiency, though you will get comments
about it if you are observant. However, at some point, if things are not
going well, especially when it involves my personal use of time, I will
In the case of both Solaris and FreeBSD, I have received very positive
responses, which lead me to believe that both are moving rapidly toward the
community taking over the tasks that I no longer wish to assume. They have
largely covered my call for participation. We still lack platform
specific "debuggers", but I am sure that will come.
To resolve the Windows issues you need to look in detail at what I say is
necessary and either start doing it yourself, or helping find people to do
By the way, in a previous email, I believe that I wrote that I would remove
the servers from the Win32 binary installer because they are not supported.
After a bit more though, I realize that this is not necessary and will leave
them in. However, they will very clearly be indicated as not supported until
the items I mentioned are brought up to the project standards ...
> I am planning on reviewing the manual and rewriting the Windows specific
> portions. But I wasn't planning on doing it until I complete all the
OK, thanks, but that schedule means that the documentation will not be up to
par (as I see it) for version 2.2.0.
Please note that normally, once something is released, it is documented in the
manual (of course, there are always a few overlooked items that we try to
quickly correct). In this case Bacula version 2.0.0 was released 4 January,
and I made an exception to allow release of the Windows servers, so I
consider it way overdue.
> The monitor application is the one of last remaining tasks.
I place bugs #807 and #819 much higher in priority, both of which are assigned
to you, and appear to me on the surface to be Windows specific.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bacula-devel-bounces@... [mailto:bacula-devel-
> > bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kern Sibbald
> > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:57 AM
> > To: bacula-devel
> > Cc: bacula-beta
> > Subject: [Bacula-devel] Bacula release 2.2.0
> > Hello,
> > Could each developer who is working on any new features for the next
> > release
> > (with the exception of bat) please email a note to the bacula-devel list
> > explaining what you are working on and the timeframe for having it stable.
> > Please report back in the next day or two, and withhold any commits that
> > either could destabilize the code or which are not documented in the
> > manual.
> > I would like to start slowing down commits (or make a 2.2.0 branch) so
> > that we
> > can ensure that 2.2.0 is stable for release.
> > This request does not apply to fixing bugs.
> > For packagers, now is probably time to start ensuring that your packaging
> > is
> > up to date. Please take a look at technotes-2.1 for any major changes.
> > Off
> > the top of my head, the following changes will be important:
> > - I have changed the names of quite a number of files concerning gnome-
> > console
> > and wx-console.
> > - gnome-console is now called bgnome-console, and its default
> > conf file name has also changed.
> > - wx-console is now called bwx-console, and its default conf
> > file name has also changed.
> > - a number of desktop files and other files in the script directory
> > had their names/contents changed to agree with the gnome ->
> > bgnome-console name change.
> > - The new Qt4 Bacula Administration Tool (bat) will be included in
> > the release, but it is not yet installed (it is built but not
> > installed) --
> > I'll work on this in the near future.
> > - The manual has not yet been changed to have the new bgnome...
> > bwx-... names.
> > Best regards,
> > Kern
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
> > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
> > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
> > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bacula-devel mailing list
> > Bacula-devel@...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel