I'll not be able to make the RC1 on 2010-09-26, so I postpone it to 2010-10-03, unless somebody else is willing to do it?
But I don't like that there is only one week between RC1 and RC2, so maybe we should shift also RC2 and release for one week?
The other option is that I prepare the RC1 tomorrow...

Maaten, Philipp and others: let me know what do you think!

Borut


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [sdcc-devel] sdcc libraries license change, sdcc 3.0 release
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:45:50 +0200
From: Borut Razem <borut.razem@siol.net>
To: sdcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net


2010-09-26: RC1
2010-10-10: RC2
2010-10-17: Release

;-)

Borut

On 09/11/2010 05:38 PM, Borut Razem wrote:
> Here is my proposition for sdcc 3.0.0 release schedule:
>
> 2010-09-26: RC1
> 2010-10-10: RC2
> 2010-10-10: Release
>
> If nobody else is willing to take the role of release manager, I'll do it.
>
> Waiting for your comments...
>
> Borut
>
>
> On 08/26/2010 08:22 PM, Maarten Brock wrote:
>    
>> Dear Developers,
>>
>> Today Philipp and I have reached below the magic border
>> of 100 bugs again. It was hard work since while working
>> on them several new were also reported or found. I
>> sincerely hope not too many hidden new ones have been
>> introduced.
>>
>> I still have 38 bugs on my list that I would like to see
>> fixed before doing a 3.0.0 release but I think that is
>> not feasible. Half of them were reported after the 2.9.0
>> release. Should they get priority or the other way
>> around?
>>
>> Still I would like we'd start discussing a release, so
>> this year will not go by without one.
>>
>> Maarten
>>
>>
>>      
>>> Hi Borut,
>>>
>>> My main interest with SDCC is to remove as many bugs as
>>> possible. I also prefer<   100 for the release. I must
>>> admit I haven't looked at the wiki bug list for a long
>>> time. The bugs I'm currently looking into are not even
>>> on it.
>>>
>>> Maarten
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Hi sdcc developers,
>>>>
>>>> I'm near to the end of " change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE" task.
>>>>
>>>> There still some sdcc library files without changed licenses because:
>>>>
>>>>       * the authors (copyright holders) haven't respond me with the
>>>>         agreement for license change. I intent to try to contact them
>>>>         again, with a statement that if I won't get the answer in two
>>>>         weeks, I'll assume that they agree with the license change.
>>>>         What do you think about this option?
>>>>       * the files were automatically generated. This is mostly related to
>>>>         pic / pic16 device definition files. Who should be the copyright
>>>>         holder for such files: the person who wrote the conversion script,
>>>>         the person who made the first svn commit of such a file or ...?
>>>>
>>>> I would really like to know your opinions, so please respond to this mail!
>>>>
>>>> In the mean time we can start the discussion about the sdcc 3.0.0
>>>> release. There are quite some bugs on the SDCC 2.0.0 Release list at
>>>> https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release. Does
>>>> anybody intent to fix them?
>>>>
>>>> Currently there are 112 open bugs in the bug tracker. I would really
>>>> like to keep this number below 100 for the release.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to know about your plans, so again: please respond to this
>>>> mail!
>>>>
>>>> Borut
>>>>
>>>>          
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
> and start using them to simplify application deployment and
> accelerate your shift to cloud computing
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> sdcc-devel mailing list
> sdcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel
>
>