On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 05:48:57PM -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > On Wednesday, November 21, 2012, Thomas Sachau wrote: > > > Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri schrieb: > > > On Wednesday, November 21, 2012, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:54:14 +0000 Michael Blumenkrantz > > >> <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> said: > > >> > > >>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Carsten Haitzler < > > ras...@rasterman.com <javascript:;><javascript:;> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:18:41 +0000 Michael Blumenkrantz > > >>>> <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> said: > > >>>> > > >>>>> ah, how quickly bets are made against me the instant I leave the > > >> country. > > >>>>> my league of admirers is always so reliable! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> distcheck is always run before a release. always. > > >>>> > > >>>> then how did it pass when the edje_cc in the 1.7 branch literally did > > >>>> crash in > > >>>> this scenario - it wasnt random. it literally was ALWAYS a strcmp > > >> against > > >>>> NULL... > > >>>> > > >>>>> I said previously that I run the stable branch at work; I'm not at > > >> work. > > >>>> > > >>>> aaaah so you didn't distcheck this one against stable branch? > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> I'm on vacation, bedridden most of the time with the German Plague and > > a > > >>> fever so high that the top of it can't be seen from the peak of Mt. > > >>> Everest. Despite this, I managed to drag myself to my computer to try > > and > > >>> do a release. > > >>> > > >>> I would appreciate greatly if people could stop being less negative and > > >>> critical, and instead focus more on being both productive and > > >> constructive. > > >> > > >> fair enough - i just never expected this should even get through if you > > are > > >> building/testing against 1.7 - since you are not right now that dos > > create > > >> some > > >> issues and changes expectations that you are testing against that. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > How about you, Raster? Are you able to test with 1.7.x? You've mentioned > > > this edje_cc bug and the Evas leaks. Anything else that is know but > > pending > > > to be debugged in EFL (leaks, crashes) or we can do a 1.7.2? > > > > If doing a full release cycle for all released libs is too much work, > > what about just a minor release for edje (like version 1.7.1.1), so that > > users can again use release tarballs to build alpha4 of e17? > > > Seems reasonable. But I guess there are other stuff in other libs to be > out. They just wanted to get it closer to e17 being out. > > I'd say we need the libs should be out before e17, then we can make sure it > works. > > Then the only situation to avoid releasing EFL is if there is something > pending fix (leaks, crashes) that must get done before such release.
So why insist on releasing e-wm tarballs, when only way to test newer tarball is to build efl from svn branch everybody who wants to test new e-wm can test it from svn trunk together when he is building efl from svn branch... Cheers, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
