2010/2/23 Cristina Videira Lopes lo...@ics.uci.edu
Let's bring the focus of this thread back. We're about to merge the
presence-refactor branch into the master branch, and then we'll need
testers, some of us will be working overtime to fix the bugs, and hopefully
Fly-Man- will update Wiredux
: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-
boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2010 3:25 PM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Status of presence refactor?
Melanie wrote:
I would not like to see the refactor
Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
Out of interest, why is this?
Well, what I said isn't the only possible route. Here's the technical
issue, then I'll explain the two ways to go at it. But then I have a
question and a warning to whoever uses SQLite.
Due to SQLite connection management constraints,
We can, by this order:
1) merge presence-refactor into master
2) create a sop-refactor branch from master immediately after
3) create a 0.7 branch some time later
I would like to propose that the sop refactoring work be done in a
branch rather than in the master branch, similar to what we did
Can I make one request... Can we tag the current master as 0.6.9 (or
something) prior to the merge?
--mic
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:13 AM, d...@metaverseink.com wrote:
We can, by this order:
1) merge presence-refactor into master
2) create a sop-refactor branch from master immediately after
+1
Mic Bowman wrote:
Can I make one request... Can we tag the current master as 0.6.9 (or
something) prior to the merge?
--mic
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:13 AM, d...@metaverseink.com
mailto:d...@metaverseink.com wrote:
We can, by this order:
1) merge presence-refactor into
d...@metaverseink.com kirjoitti:
We can, by this order:
1) merge presence-refactor into master
2) create a sop-refactor branch from master immediately after
3) create a 0.7 branch some time later
I would like to propose that the sop refactoring work be done in a
branch rather than in the
How nice of you Mark!
From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Mark Malewski
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 4:01 PM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Status of presence refactor?
Adam/Chris/Melanie/Diva
-dev@lists.berlios.de
*Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Status of presence refactor?
Adam/Chris/Melanie/Diva,
* since I don't have any Linux machines at my disposal for mono *
* testing (and my development servers will be going on shipping*
* containers for a month in the very near future
Yeah, we could have done that in theory. In practice, we're all still
fairly ignorant when it comes to using git, and we've all had close
encounters with git disasters. Melanie is the one keeping branches in
sync, she has spent a lot of time resolving conflicts by hand, helping
out the
d...@metaverseink.com wrote:
Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
Out of interest, why is this?
Well, what I said isn't the only possible route. Here's the technical
issue, then I'll explain the two ways to go at it. But then I have a
question and a warning to whoever uses SQLite.
Due to SQLite
I think that a tag would be good but please _not_ anything that suggests 0.6.9.
I would really like to see us reserve version numbers for proper releases that
have undergone the release candidate procedure.
d...@metaverseink.com wrote:
+1
Mic Bowman wrote:
Can I make one request... Can
* we're all still fairly ignorant when it comes to using git, and *
* we've all had close encounters with git disasters.*
Why are we using GIT? I understand that it's supposed to be better than
CVS/SVN, but it's still a dinosaur compared to Mercurial or Bazaar. Why
aren't we using Mercurial?
*
On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
You're right - I don't have any numbers so perhaps no-one is doing
that. I took the liberty of copying this over to the users list to
see if any hands are raised there.
If SQLite is just being used for single person/demonstration
There is also a nice TortoiseHG client (identical to TortoiseSVN) for
mercurial, for both Windows and Linux users. It makes Mercurial extremely
easy to use (in both Windows and Linux).
http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/TortoiseHg
It includes a nice Tortoise mercurial GUI and merge tools (and
Mic,
It seems like a good request. I like the idea of a tag, but maybe we should
create two tags? Use a 0.6.8.x tag prior to the merge, and a 0.6.9.x tag
after the merge? Then save the 0.7 tag for the stable RC?
* Can I make one request... Can we tag the current master as *
* 0.6.9 (or
I don't think we can survive another move. Also, I don't want to
learn another toolchain, I want to develop.
-1
Melanie
Mark Malewski wrote:
* we're all still fairly ignorant when it comes to using git, and *
* we've all had close encounters with git disasters.*
Why are we using GIT? I
Mark,
Your offer is quite generous, however most of us already have test regions
set up to facilitate development. On the subject of mercurial, we spent
several developer-months switching over to git and several more months after
that getting used to it and becoming productive again. I doubt
Devs,
I can setup 4 sandbox servers for tagged release bug testing:
Server 1: Ubuntu Linux w/ SQ Lite
Server 2: Ubuntu Linux w/ MySQL
Server 3: Windows 2008 R2 w/ SQ Lite
Server 4: Windows 2008 R2 w/ MySQL
Then the dev's can decide which tagged versions they would like to install
on which
* **I don't think we can survive another move. Also, I don't want to*
* learn another toolchain, I want to develop.*
I know, but as an engineer (hardware/server/network administrator) it's my
job to help SUPPORT you, by creating a nice environment for you to do your
work. ;-)
If you can spend 3
Let's bring the focus of this thread back. We're about to merge the
presence-refactor branch into the master branch, and then we'll need
testers, some of us will be working overtime to fix the bugs, and
hopefully Fly-Man- will update Wiredux sometime soon. Then a big
effort in
Hi,
rant
skipped _everything_ from the first mention of Tortoise
Apparently, you don't know much about the people you are so eager to
support.
I use Linux, and work exclusively on the command line. I don't use
any Windows OS at all. Also, I'd sooner be found dead that be found
using a
* Your offer is quite generous, however most of us already have test
regions set *
* up to facilitate development.*
Ok, I was just offering. So at least we'd have various platforms that the
dev's (and alpha testing community) could use for sandboxing and bug
reporting platforms.
* On the
3:25 PM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Status of presence refactor?
Melanie wrote:
I would not like to see the refactor start in the branch, because
that would postpone a merge indefinitely.
Yes, please whatever happens, do not start any sog refactoring
[mailto:opensim-dev-
boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey
Sent: Friday, 19 February 2010 3:25 PM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Status of presence refactor?
Melanie wrote:
I would not like to see the refactor start in the branch, because
Does anyone know what is the current status of the presence refactor - is there
any date on when that is going to hit trunk?
I'd really like to see 0.7 get tagged soon, so we can begin the big object
model refactor.
Thanks!
Adam
___
Opensim-dev
Sigh.
It's ready. It's been fully operational for several weeks, modulo
buglets. It hasn't been merged because the SQLite connector hasn't been
redone and at least Melanie doesn't want to merge without it.
For me, the SQLite connector continues to be a big question mark.
There's the
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:15 AM, d...@metaverseink.com wrote:
Sigh.
It's ready. It's been fully operational for several weeks, modulo
buglets. It hasn't been merged because the SQLite connector hasn't been
redone and at least Melanie doesn't want to merge without it.
could you release a
I could, but I'm hesitant to make diva distro releases from branches
that aren't the master branch. Plus, so far the differences between the
two branches are purely internal; there is no functional difference, or
new bug fixes, or anything like that. The new architecture will allow
for lots of
-
From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of
d...@metaverseink.com
Sent: 18 February 2010 3:16 PM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Status of presence refactor?
Sigh.
It's ready. It's been fully operational
It's not fully there, I still haven't finished friends. RL, the need
to produce immediate revenue, and the absence of SQLite support, all
contributed to that.
I'm wrestling with the client on that, because OpenSim has some
badness there. Specifically, if you are missing an online friend
(that
Honestly Adam I think if were ever going to be able to get to 0.7 we are
going to have to upgrade the memory in the OpenSimulator.org hardware, GIT
is so slow right now that it could take forever to do testing if we needed
to do alot of patching/fixing. Until thats done I would not expect
32 matches
Mail list logo
