|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2015-07-10 09:57:03
|
Greetings. It'll soon be time for another X.Y.0 release. Personally, I'd prefer to call it 4.0.0 rather than 3.11.0, in keeping with recent rationalisation of the Linux kernel and GCC numbering schemes. I'd like to propose the following: 7 August 2015: feature freeze 1 September 2015: release This puts it at roughly a year since 3.10, and also ties in conveniently with the tentative Fedora 23 schedule. On the whole I think the tree is in a pretty good shape. Items I'd like to see completed: Make sure that gcc 5.1 and glibc 2.22 support is solid Fix as many bugs in docs/internals/3_10_BUGSTATUS.txt as possible Initial support for MacOSX 10.11 Finish reviewing and merge the Solaris port, if feasible Comments on the timing? Other stuff people want get in? J |
|
From: Ivo R. <ivo...@gm...> - 2015-07-12 01:14:05
|
2015-07-10 11:56 GMT+02:00 Julian Seward <js...@ac...>: > > On the whole I think the tree is in a pretty good shape. Items I'd > like to see completed: > ... > Finish reviewing and merge the Solaris port, if feasible > Glad to hear that! Given how much time and effort we all together spent developing, testing and reviewing the Solaris port, we should really strive for 4.0.0. Bug https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=345248 contains new set of patches against SVN upstream (Valgrind r15409, VEX r3162). Please let us know what needs to be done to finish reviewing and merging it. Kind regards, I. |
|
From: Florian K. <fl...@ei...> - 2015-07-13 05:52:25
|
On 10.07.2015 11:56, Julian Seward wrote: > It'll soon be time for another X.Y.0 release. Personally, I'd prefer > to call it 4.0.0 rather than 3.11.0, in keeping with recent > rationalisation of the Linux kernel and GCC numbering schemes. 3.11.0 would be preferred here. Advancing the major release number is usually understood to indicate some major functional advance, incompatibility to previous versions or something possibly disruptive. Neither is true for the upcoming release. And doing something because somebody else does it isn't a good reason. I'll try to get a fix in for #338606. Florian |
|
From: Matthias S. <zz...@ge...> - 2015-08-04 06:35:55
|
Am 10.07.2015 um 11:56 schrieb Julian Seward: > > Greetings. > Hi! > It'll soon be time for another X.Y.0 release. Personally, I'd prefer > to call it 4.0.0 rather than 3.11.0, in keeping with recent > rationalisation of the Linux kernel and GCC numbering schemes. > > I'd like to propose the following: > > 7 August 2015: feature freeze > 1 September 2015: release > > This puts it at roughly a year since 3.10, and also ties in > conveniently with the tentative Fedora 23 schedule. > > On the whole I think the tree is in a pretty good shape. Items I'd > like to see completed: > > Make sure that gcc 5.1 and glibc 2.22 support is solid > Fix as many bugs in docs/internals/3_10_BUGSTATUS.txt as possible > Initial support for MacOSX 10.11 > Finish reviewing and merge the Solaris port, if feasible > > Comments on the timing? Other stuff people want get in? My wishlist is: Bugfixes: * Fix missing compiler options: [PATCH 1/2] Fix compilation of libvex tests when additional compiler options are needed. * Fix profiling numbers that trigger assertion fails: [PATCH 2/2] memcheck: Fix prof_event numbers * Fix signedness of profile prints: Re: [Valgrind-developers] [PATCH 2/2] memcheck: Fix prof_event numbers Features: * Write callstack of fatal signal to xml output: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191069 * Not implemented yet: Let exit from replaced functions not call exit, but either a client request or raise(SIGXXXX). What about this? * Print more callstacks for mempool errors: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322256 Regards Matthias |
|
From: Philippe W. <phi...@sk...> - 2015-08-04 19:27:20
|
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 08:35 +0200, Matthias Schwarzott wrote: > * Fix missing compiler options: [PATCH 1/2] Fix compilation of libvex > tests when additional compiler options are needed. This is committed as revision 15485. Thanks for the patch. Philippe |