[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: CVS branch-2-0 R.I.P.
From: |
Peter Ekberg |
Subject: |
RE: CVS branch-2-0 R.I.P. |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:06:05 +0200 |
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 14:10
> To: Libtool
> Subject: CVS branch-2-0 R.I.P.
>
> Fellow Libtoolers (if you're reading, that means you!),
>
> I still have reservations, but am otherwise somewhat convinced that
> dropping development of branch-2-0 in favour of HEAD is a reasonable
> thing
> to do at this juncture. Unless someone yells to the contrary
> real soon
> now, I see no reason to continue to maintain branch-2-0 from
> here on in.
>
> In due course, I think it is fine to release 2.0 from HEAD (or a new
> release branch from future trunk HEAD to be precise) even with known
> minor bugs, provided that we list them in the release
> announcement. In
> order to speed the release, and in the spirit of "release early,
> release
> often", I say we identify the actual showstoppers, and
> release 1.9h from
> HEAD with just those fixed. There is a list of showstoppers
> on my wiki
> at http://tkd.kicks-ass.net/GnuLibtoolProject/RoadMap.
>
> If 1.9h is well received, I believe we should release 2.0 soon after
> (minor bugs and all), and then work on the remaining regressions for a
> quick 2.0.2. In order to prevent any further slippage, until 2.0.2 is
> out there we should reject all patches, and commit changes only for:
>
> - bugs
> - regressions
> - documentation
> - testsuite improvements
> - and maybe MSVC support, iff we can confine changes to this system.
>
> Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
What is the requirements on the autotools for a libtoolized
package from HEAD? I heard a rumor that cvs versions were
required, at least at some point, is that really the case
or was it just a rumor?
I can personally live with that the person doing the actual
libtoolize needs cvs-autotools, but the rest of the
developers on the package should not be required to use
cvs-autotools.
Cheers,
Peter