Hi Fotis,
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:25, Fotis Georgatos wrote:
> Hi Ken, all,
>
> On 26 Feb, 2013, at 17:50, Kenneth Hoste wrote:
>> Please test this release ASAP
>
> Challenge accepted!
Great! Keep us posted.
> -BEZWAARSCHRIFT- (smile)
>
> I already have one complaint: the supported packages are far too many :)
> for poor no-PBS pals like us to build/debug in 48hrs, w/out parallel builder!
>
> I am joking here, since we do have some manual workarounds for it,
> but the volume of builds is indeed a bit serious for other newcomers.
> I suggest to at least permit the parallel builds within one node
> (interactive),
> since a multi-core build is bound to function relatively OK, for most.
Is there an issue for this yet? ;-)
>
> fyi.
> I already have two nodes dedicated on it (one ictce, one goalf)
> and they seem to progress quite fine so far; so, fingers crossed.
Cool. Unless you bump into release-blockers, any feedback w.r.t. failing builds
on your end is highly welcome!
>
> ps.
> also for reasons discussed earlier, I think we should rather tag it -rc1, no?
No, my version-related comments are clear about this:
$ sed -n "37,39p" easybuild/tools/version.py
# note: release candidates should be versioned as a pre-release, e.g. "1.1rc1"
# 1.1-rc1 would indicate a post-release, i.e., and update of 1.1, so beware!
VERSION = LooseVersion("1.2.0rc1")
Using '-rc1' would tag it as a post-release according to LooseVersion, i.e.
1.2.0-rc1 > 1.2.0 > 1.2.0rc1 > 1.2.0dev
That would screw things up when we actually release v1.2.0, as 1.2.0-rc1 would
be considered newer.
> once again, congrats for the good job,
You have a significant part in v1.2 too, just check out the
easyblocks/easyconfigs release notes!
K.
