Re: [Gerbv-devel] Windows version of 2.1.x?

[Dan M. <da...@mc...>]

sorry for the delay.  Been totally, completely, swamped.

yes, I'm proposing a new source release.

My concern with trying to bring the project file changes (like I said, 
it is not just windows, its just that it will always affect windows and 
just sometimes linux) in users will see more than a bug fix.  There is a 
change in how the scheme init file is located.  Also I guess there is 
the question of if we want the other changes that have happened between 
then and now for the speedups.  If we want all of those then it seems 
like a lot of effort to pull all of the changes up to the 2.1 branch and 
it also takes the 2.1 branch beyond the scope of bug fixes.

I guess my overall philosophy for a project this size is that a 2nd 
release on a branch should be a pretty rare thing.  I'd reserve it for 
those 1 line bugs which cause an immediate crash or some other fairly 
fatal thing.  This is in contrast to something like an operating system 
where you have so much activity on the trunk that there really is a big 
benefit to maintaining a few releases of a stable branch.

It doesn't seem to me that there have been so many really major changes 
on the trunk since the last branch to make us nervous about starting a 
new branch with lots of brand new code.


Julian wrote:
> Dan, are you proposing releasing another source tarball for the 2.2.0 
> release too?  I guess I'd vote to keep the Windows version in the 2.1.x 
> series, since the changes are still relatively small compared to the 
> 2.1.0 release.
> 
> Stuart, I never got a response on whether or not a 2.1 release 
> announcement was posted anywhere.  We haven't gotten any bug reports 
> yet....I guess no news is good news, but I worry we just haven't gotten 
> much user testing yet.
> 
> Cheers--
> 
> On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 18:53 -0400, Dan McMahill wrote:
>> I'd say we should cut a new release barring any complaints about what is 
>> in cvs currently.  All of those fixes went in right after the 2.1 branch 
>> so they have been there for I guess about a month.  Since there are some 
>> behavioral changes in addition to bug fixes I'd probably claim that this 
>> would be 2.2.0.
>>
>> -Dan
>