Thread: [Lxr-dev] Reaching 1.0
Brought to you by:
ajlittoz
From: Malcolm B. <ma...@br...> - 2001-10-24 15:36:26
|
Hi, I think we are reaching the point where we could declare a 1.0 release. The major features that I wanted to see in the lxr are there - CSS support, faster indexing, generic language support and more compliant HTML output. What do you think - are we at the point where we could declare a 1.0 release and move on to the next major development cycle, or are we still missing key features, bug fixes or stability? Malcolm |
From: Malcolm B. <ma...@br...> - 2001-10-25 07:32:42
|
Pavel Hlavnicka wrote: > > Just for better look: what about checking the HTML conformance. What > version? Currently documents declare 3.2. Did somebody test the > conformance? What about upgrade to 4? As of version 0.9 the templates declare the output to be HTML 4.01 Transitional (or they should ;-). I've run the source output through the validator at www.w3c.org and it passes. I've also run the ident output through it, but not the diff or search/find output. I don't expect those to be a problem, but it might be worth you checking. The other thing to do is to validate the CSS that we ship - as yet I haven't done this. > I know, this is not important, but reaching the release version is a > challenge to test it. Absolutely - we shouldn't display the logo if we're not doing the right thing. Cheers, Malcolm |
From: Per K. G. <pk...@ne...> - 2001-10-25 16:16:53
|
On Wed, 2001-10-24 at 17:35, Malcolm Box wrote: > I think we are reaching the point where we could declare a 1.0 release. That is good news. > The major features that I wanted to see in the lxr are there - CSS > support, faster indexing, generic language support and more compliant > HTML output. > > What do you think - are we at the point where we could declare a 1.0 > release and move on to the next major development cycle, or are we > still > missing key features, bug fixes or stability? There are currently 6 open bugs in the bugtracker. I don't think we should declare 1.0 before all of them are resolved. We could either decide that a bug is no problem for 1.0 or we should fix it. Another thing is that I think that 1.0 should be able to index the entire linux-kernel and run on lxr.linux.no. It must of course be me who does this testing. We should also decide on which database backends to support. We should not ship backends that do not work. Have anyone ever gotten the DBFile backend to work? Per Kristian |
From: Malcolm B. <ma...@br...> - 2001-11-17 15:56:39
|
Hi, Per Kristian Gjermshus wrote: > > What do you think - are we at the point where we could declare a 1.0 > > release and move on to the next major development cycle, or are we > > still > > missing key features, bug fixes or stability? > > There are currently 6 open bugs in the bugtracker. I don't think we > should declare 1.0 before all of them are resolved. We could either > decide that a bug is no problem for 1.0 or we should fix it. I agree, we should go through all the bugs and either postpone them to the next release or fix them for 1.0. Currently there are the following bugs outstanding: 447980 Generic config missing 463138 Unable to enter full glimpse REs 469413 Non-symbols can be mistaken for symbols 471858 Some characters in files create trouble 476695 Java interfaces display as docs 476773 Shouldn't install global signal handlers 476775 mod_perl coding style should be checked 481573 requires non-free software for searching 481597 Should index X::Y() as well as Y() Of these, I think "Generic config missing", "Non-symbols can be mistaken for symbols", "Shouldn't install global signal handlers", "mod_perl coding style should be checked" and "Should index X::Y as well as Y" can all be futured to post 1.0. That leave 4 bugs remaining. I have a fix in progress for 476695 and I can see a way to fix 481573. 471858 & 463138 are the same underlying bug to do with how aggressively we wash incoming http parameters. The signal handlers fix is trivial to remove, but replacing with a good solution is more difficult, so maybe we should future this one. All in all, there's not too much left to do I feel. Of course, there's still the lurking "unable to locate module Foo" bug that seems to crop up periodically, but without a reliable way to reproduce it nor a good diagnoses I don't know what to do about it. > Another thing is that I think that 1.0 should be able to index the > entire linux-kernel and run on lxr.linux.no. It must of course be me who > does this testing. It would be very good to be able to showcase the new version on lxr.linux.no. Are you likely to be able to install the new version any time soon? It may also be possible to install a demo site on the sourceforge webservers, possibly indexing some of the other projects on SF. I haven't yet investigated how easy this will be to set up. > We should also decide on which database backends to support. We should > not ship backends that do not work. Have anyone ever gotten the DBFile > backend to work? I know of no-one who has got it to work - unless someone steps up to make it work and maintain it, I suggest it should be dropped from the release. There's also a PR job to do with all the various sites round the web that run the LXR to try to convince them to upgrade to the new version. So far I know of: cvs.gnome.org lxr.mozilla.org who are running the 0.3 codebase. If anyone knows of any others, please let me know so I can contact them and suggest they might want to try the newer version. Cheers, Malcolm |