fetchmail-devel

[fetchmail-devel] Not Yet Reviewed Queue is Empty!

[Matthias A. <ma...@dt...>]

OK,

apart from the norman-fix_config_reload I queried in a mail a few
minutes ago, our "not yet reviewed" queue is empty. Most of the stuff
was a feature patch one way or another, or was invasive, which Rob
deemed inappropriate for 6.2.6 - which should go out the door this year
preferably... details are in the Wiki at
http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=FetchmailPatchReview

So the remaining issue are:

- charset of localized bounce mails
- update localization (.po files) via the translation project
  (I'll handle this as soon as we know we're not making any more code or
  message changes)
- do smoke compile tests on the various machines we have access to
- package a release candidate and call for testers in the public

Anything missing?

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 (PGP/MIME preferred)

Re: [fetchmail-devel] Not Yet Reviewed Queue is Empty!

[Rob F. <rf...@fu...>]

Matthias Andree wrote:
> apart from the norman-fix_config_reload I queried in a mail a few
> minutes ago, our "not yet reviewed" queue is empty.

Awesome, thanks!

> - charset of localized bounce mails
> - update localization (.po files) via the translation project
>   (I'll handle this as soon as we know we're not making any more code or
>   message changes)
> - do smoke compile tests on the various machines we have access to
> - package a release candidate and call for testers in the public
>
> Anything missing?

There's still work to be done for building a release, converting Eric's 
scripts over to the non-ESR Berlios environment.

Since Eric has regained control of the old mailing lists, it would be good 
to coordinate with him to get those moved over.

-- 
==============================|   "A microscope locked in on one point
 Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> |Never sees what kind of room that it's in"
 http://www.funknet.net/rfunk |    -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind"

Re: [fetchmail-devel] Not Yet Reviewed Queue is Empty!

[Matthias A. <ma...@dt...>]

Rob Funk <rf...@fu...> writes:

> There's still work to be done for building a release, converting Eric's 
> scripts over to the non-ESR Berlios environment.

The tarball currently generated by "make dist" appears to be
self-contained, as "make distcheck" will confirm. Make distcheck cannot,
however, check for documentation we want in that isn't listed in a
Makefile.am.

> Since Eric has regained control of the old mailing lists, it would be good 
> to coordinate with him to get those moved over.

OK. Can we also copy over the archives with little effort (Mailman on
lists.ccil.org stores the while archive in mbox format, we'd need this
rather than downloading one per each month as the web interface of
pipermail offers.)

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 (PGP/MIME preferred)

[fetchmail-devel] Re: Not Yet Reviewed Queue is Empty!

[Graham W. <gr...@mk...>]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:54:32PM -0400, Rob Funk wrote:
> Matthias Andree wrote:
> > - charset of localized bounce mails
> > - update localization (.po files) via the translation project
> >   (I'll handle this as soon as we know we're not making any more code or
> >   message changes)
> > - do smoke compile tests on the various machines we have access to
> > - package a release candidate and call for testers in the public
> >
> > Anything missing?
> 
> There's still work to be done for building a release, converting Eric's 
> scripts over to the non-ESR Berlios environment.

Once we've figured out how were going to build release tarballs, I'd
like to look at the differences between the 6.2.5 tarball and the 6.2.6
tarball, and make sure we are aware of all of the changes.

Hmm... come to think of it, should this release be 6.3.0? This is the
first release in a while, and the maintainers have changed. Seems to me
to warrant more than a patch version number increased.

-- 
gram

Re: [fetchmail-devel] Re: Not Yet Reviewed Queue is Empty!

[Matthias A. <ma...@dt...>]

Graham Wilson <gr...@mk...> writes:

> Once we've figured out how were going to build release tarballs, I'd
> like to look at the differences between the 6.2.5 tarball and the 6.2.6
> tarball, and make sure we are aware of all of the changes.
>
> Hmm... come to think of it, should this release be 6.3.0? This is the
> first release in a while, and the maintainers have changed. Seems to me
> to warrant more than a patch version number increased.

I'm reading the numer as major.minor.patchlevel.

The maintainer change doesn't warrant the minor bump, but the automake
switchover does, so I'd also vote for 6.3.0.

I'd suggest we bump minor if we add features or make large compatible
changes; and we bump major for incompatible changes, and patchlevel for
bugfixes.

We absolutely MUST refrain from doing ESR's nonsense of calling .0
patchlevels "gold". The latest patchlevel with the same major.minor is
"gold", currently 6.2.5, rather than 6.2.0 - and we need to communicate
this change in versioning to our users.

I'd also suggest that we do bugfix patches only on patchlevels
henceforth, similar to what the GCC team do (they are a bit more radical
and will just fix regressions, not even regular bugs).

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 (PGP/MIME preferred)