Alex,
Dne 15.3.2013 14:08, Alex Peshkoff napsal(a):
Pavel, why do you think we need QA after with the single one-line patch?
IMO check for installability (avoid network errors) is enough.
The main reason for releasing that versions is avoiding QA and long
release notes cycle. (yes, we need
On 15-3-2013 20:16, Anthonys Lists wrote:
On 14/03/2013 19:34, Michal Kubecek wrote:
I guess there is no perfect solution with the versions we have now but
to avoid making the version more messy than necessary, this emergency
release should IMHO be called 2.5.2, not 2.5.3 or even higher. So
All,
I see only two choices good enough for considering:
a) Release 2.1.5.18497 and 2.5.2.26540 (suffixed with Security Update
1), don't mark it as a separate release but replace the binaries with
the new version (like we did for the bad builds in the past).
The question here is whether we
On 03/15/13 15:53, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
The question here is whether we need to publish the fixed v2.0.7 as
well. It's discontinued but present on our website home page.
Backport is trivial. But I prefer to remove it from website.
On 03/15/13 17:19, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
On 15/03/2013 10:14, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
On 03/15/13 15:53, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
The question here is whether we need to publish the fixed v2.0.7 as
well. It's discontinued but present on our website home page.
Backport is trivial.
On 14/03/2013 19:34, Michal Kubecek wrote:
I guess there is no perfect solution with the versions we have now but
to avoid making the version more messy than necessary, this emergency
release should IMHO be called 2.5.2, not 2.5.3 or even higher. So the
best (or rather least bad) is IMHO
Ok, I'll bite. What is LO?
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_marFirebird-Devel mailing list, web
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 03:38:50PM -0400, Doug Chamberlin wrote:
Ok, I'll bite. What is LO?
LibreOffice, I guess.
Michal Kubeček
--
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
On 15/03/13 19:38, Doug Chamberlin wrote:
Ok, I'll bite. What is LO?
LibreOffice. The replacement for OpenOffice. They want to replace the
current Java-based database, and they'd like to use Firebird to do it.
I'm not sure their ideas are feasible, though ...
What is feasible is to configure
14.03.2013 11:48, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
I see no problems building packages with this patch. It's really
trivial, and if packages are based on previous tags (2.1.5/2.5.2), not
branches, they do not require QA and release notes, they can be released
with just single note: Fixed severe security
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:47:24 +0100, Paul Reeves pree...@ibphoenix.com
wrote:
On Thursday 14 March 2013 15:51:40 Stefan Heymann wrote:
I don't know how your versions are organized. But for us users out
there it would be difficult to distinguish Firebird by build numbers
or, even worse,
On 03/14/13 18:51, Stefan Heymann wrote:
What I do not understand - what number will get that release? It's
definitely not 2.5.3. May be Firebird-2.5.2.26540-1? (We had
Firebird-2.5.2.26539-0).
This may cause confusion with Firebird-2.5.3.26540 which does not have
the bug fixed. But I'm out
On 14/03/2013 12:55, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
The trouble of this solution is that many people use snapshot builds,
already named 2.5.3. And it has a number of other bugs fixed.
Everything would be easier if we were using versions numbers in a more
sane way.
We do use two slots (say, 2.5) to
So the most honest and straightforward thing would be to call this
2.5.3 and everything that comes later will then be 2.5.4 and so on.
You make a good point. The only problem is that 2.5.3 has been available as a
rolling snapshot release for a while now and a lot of fixes in the tracker
are
On Thursday 14 March 2013 17:07:15 Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
On 14/03/2013 12:55, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
The trouble of this solution is that many people use snapshot builds,
already named 2.5.3. And it has a number of other bugs fixed.
Everything would be easier if we were using
On 14/03/2013 13:19, Paul Reeves wrote:
That seems like a recipe for version number hyper-inflation to me. In no time
at all we will be into double figures for version numbers - perhaps even
triple before the end of the decade! It can't be allowed - if nothing else
firebird stands for
some other packages use 2.5.3-1
On 14 March 2013 15:55, Alex Peshkoff peshk...@mail.ru wrote:
On 03/14/13 18:51, Stefan Heymann wrote:
What I do not understand - what number will get that release? It's
definitely not 2.5.3. May be Firebird-2.5.2.26540-1? (We had
There are customers out there who are very concerned about security
and for them there should also be a note in the release notes.
The trouble of this solution is that many people use snapshot builds, already
named 2.5.3. And it has a number of other bugs fixed.
Anyone using snapshot
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 01:07:15PM -0300, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
Everything would be easier if we were using versions numbers in a more
sane way.
We do use two slots (say, 2.5) to actually represent major versions.
If we were using only one:
1.0.0 = 1.0.0
1.5.0 = 2.0.0
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:42:36 +0400, Dmitry Yemanov firebi...@yandex.ru
wrote:
12.03.2013 10:29, marius adrian popa wrote:
https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/pull/1558
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8BjXNLmuOY
http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-4058
Snapshot builds
20 matches
Mail list logo
