Re: gEDA-user: gschem 1.4.3 and LINGUAS="de en"

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 22:09 +0100, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 10.03.2009, 20:25 +0000 schrieb Peter Clifton:

> I have seen the statement of Ales Hvezda multiple times not to include
> the 1.5.x release in distributions.

Yes, that is true, but I'd still encourage distribution packagers to
test-package those releases, so any problems relating to their packaging
can be worked out before the stable series release.

More work, I know, but hopefully worthwhile.

> But when reading your text above I really wonder if this is is a good
> decision. Debian has stable, testing and unstable branches. Gentoo has
> stable and testing/unstable branch. My impression is, that most people
> on this list uses 1.5.x, it seems to work not too bad, and final 1.6 may
> be far away in time. So people have to make a decision: Use 1.4.3
> shipped with their distribution, or compile 1.5.x from sources.

1.5.x has been quite stable, yes. I don't think we take any _less_ care
over our "unstable" releases now than when we just released time-based
snapshots from the HEAD of the old CVS repository. What we can't do is
provide feature frozen stable updates for the unstable series. (e.g
preserving libgeda ABI, not adding new features.) For this reason, some
distros won't _want_ to package the unstable series.

> May it be reasonable to allow distributions to include 1.5.x into their
> testing/unstable branch?

I (personally) think that depends on whether they automatically got
filtered down into the distro's stable releases or not. Gentoo and
Debian Experimental are about the only ones I can think of which this
might hold true for. There is no harm in doing test packagings though,
if they aren't released other than to a community of distro testers.

1.5.1 is probably stable enough it could have been released. The counter
argument is that if there is great demand for a new release, and we're
not ready, we should perhaps do a GNOME.. bump some of our list of
desired features to the next cycle, and get on with releasing what we
have, rather than blocking (for a possibly unbounded length of time) on
a list of bug-fixes / must-have features for a given release.

Perhaps we should make our release targets:

Feature A
Feature B
Feature C
Ideally release by date "X"
Definitely release by date "Y"

(Where features might be dropped to meet the latter condition).

-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user