On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:17:53PM +0100, Christian Stimming wrote: > Dear gnucash developers, > > almost two weeks ago I proposed a release schedule for the upcoming > unstable 1.9.x release series. See > https://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/2006-January/015658.html > and http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Schedule > > The goal of the 1.9.x series, starting with 1.9.0, is to provide easier > access for testers to a source package. The goal is *not* to be at the > "all pieces ported fully to g2" state! Instead, all of these releases > will be clearly marked as "work in progress", but I guess we will > immediately get a much broader testing audience once we actually start > to distribute the unstable tarballs. > > That said, I proposed in that original mail to have the initial 1.9.0 > release quite soon, namely on next Sunday, January 29th. The question > is: What do think needs to be finished before a 1.9.0 release?
Last time I checked, 'make distcheck' still fails, but 'make check' passes. I have some vague impression that this might cause packaging difficulties. > Because > if there isn't any outstanding issue, we could just as well go ahead and > in fact *do* the 1.9.0 release this Sunday. Whoa. One thing I'd like to include in 1.9.0 is a gnucash-debug script that runs gnucash under gdb. > One answer is given by the outstanding bugs in bugzilla which are marked > with milestone=1.9.0: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=GnuCash&target_milestone=1.9.0 > > If you have any more issues, please always add them to bugzilla. > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=GnuCash If you think > these should be fixed before a particular release, mark them with the > respective milestone. > > That query currently says there is one more bug that should be fixed > before 1.9.0, namely the "Crash on opening 1.8 datafile with renamed > reports". But it's not clear whether this has been fixed by Chris and/or > cannot be reproduced anymore. If it isn't that much of an issue any > longer then maybe we can move it to a later target. If it is still an > issue then we need to fix it. I can reproduce it. At least, I get the "there had been an error in the report" message, but not a crash. > So. What are we going to do? Having a 1.9.0 release this Sunday might > sound agressive, but OTOH what do we gain by postponing to some later > point in time? If there are particular issues that we think need to be > resolved, then I'd propose just the next weekend: Feb 5th. But if there > aren't any more issues, then we can just take this weekend... > > We'd still need to point out somebody as the designated release dude who > will prepare and upload the tarball. Chris Lyttle did this in 1.8.x. > Chris, would you be available to do this for 1.9.x as well or should we > point out someone else? > > What do people think? One issue I've been meaning to raise for a while, but ... better late than never: I think we should totally change the way we produce the NEWS entries. We should be reporting on significant user-visible changes in the NEWS file. I think that we should be making those entries at the _same_ time as the changes themselves. We can have an accumulator of entries at the top of the file and then just date and version it at release-time and start an empty accumulator. It's tempting to procrastinate but I think it's best to maintain NEWS as-we-go. I'll try to commit some entries. -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
