On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Martin Landa <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2015-02-21 17:49 GMT+01:00 Martin Landa <[email protected]>: > >> Except for grass6-dev: does it really make sense to still publish a -dev > >> version of grass6 ? In my thinking we will be in pure bug fixing mode > for > >> grass6 once grass7 is out. I would actually plead to reduce to one > grass6 > >> branch on trac with bug-fixes only for that branch and bug-fix releases > just > >> being tags of that branch. > > > > make sense to me. Martin > > to summarize OSGeo4W proposal: > > * `grass` will be 7.0.0 > * `grass6` will be 6.4.4 (hopefully soon 6.4.5) > * `grass-svn` will be 7.0.1svn (*) > * `grass-trunk-svn` will be 7.1svn > * `grass64-dev` will be removed > > Martin > > (*) `dev` is really misleading here, so `svn` or `daily` (`svn` sounds > more technical). I don't like svn in package names. Daily expresses much better what it is. It is not the current state of svn, it is a daily build. With leaving out the daily builds of current release branch (now 70), it would be just: * `grass` - latest stable release * `grass6` - latest stable release of 6.x series * `grass-daily` - daily build of trunk In my suggestion I suppose that we don't need to package daily builds of current release branch (now 70). However, I'm not sure how to deal with betas and RCs. Should they be also accessible just through standalone installer? Or are they considered as "latest stable release" and thus for example, 7.0.1RC1 would replace 7.0.0 in package `grass`?
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
