On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Peter Karman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am preparing to put together our board report for this month, and I note
> that we have not had a release in many months.
>
> Does anyone have a sense of how far we are from a 0.4.0 release and what is
> on the todo list for that milestone?
Work continues on additional host language bindings. The C binding is
furthest along and seems likely to be finished first.
Efforts to break up Lucy into multiple shared objects (Clownfish, Lucy,
Lucy::Test) are underway but incomplete.
MSVC 6 compatibility has been achieved on trunk. However, efforts to track
down and squash the last few CPAN testers failures with the latest 0.3.x
release stalled a few months ago.
Charmonizer has been simplified significantly since 0.3.x and is starting to
take on tasks which would previously have been the responsibility of
individual host binding build regimes. This is not visible to end users, but
is part of the effort to add host language bindings.
There are a number of odds and ends which need to be cleaned up prior to
0.4.0. Off the top of my head:
* Update Charmonizer README.
* Craft POD for Clownfish* classes -- basically, give them stubs with
a bare minimum of explanatory info, since they aren't yet ready for prime
time.
* Update the Perl 'dist' action to deal with some changes to the layout of
the repository and new behaviors of CFC and Charmonizer.
* Update release_commands.pl to reflect the migration from Subversion to Git.
There has not been a lot of work on the core search code lately, and thus in
my estimation it is not very risky to release 0.4.0 despite the considerable
churn around the build and binding periphery. If a release was justified, we
could put one out at nearly any time after some minor fixups and it should be
approximately as stable in production as 0.3.x.
I suspect I've left a few things out that would have made the TODO list if I'd
reviewed the commit log, but that's an overview.
I suggest incorporating only the first two sentences of this email into the
report -- the Board does not need and cannot make use of elaborate technical
detail -- in addition to the date and version number of our last release.
Marvin Humphrey
