I talked to Neal off-list, so I'd like to clarify as well. I think the three of us are thinking basically the same thing, but it doesn't help when we talk about "3.3" or "4.0." So let's talk about "how to get 3.2.0b4 out soon."
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Gilles Detillieux wrote: > > I guess it comes down to that I think the code is good enough now to > > consider a release in the near-term without a raft of changes/improvements. ... > was the last actual release of 3.2. We need to get 3.2.0b4 out soon, if > only to give b3 a proper burial. I think we all agree here, with the caveat below. I *hate* apologizing for the "known database bug." Neal: I read your statement as "let's release 3.2 with what we have." I'm not sure I agree with that. > compression retro-fit. This has to be the default behaviour - we can't > put another beta out with the current buggy word db compression code. Agreed. If Neal can get me his zlib patch soon, then we can put that in, test and try a 3.2.0b4 with that sooner, rather than later. > 3) My own lack of time in being able to get the 3.1.6 fixes/updates > forward ported to 3.2. If you have a list of particular things, it would help significantly. I'll check through the mailing list, but if you have a list somewhere it'd save some time. > library (iconv). I think Neal's idea of the zlib-WordDB-compression > retrofit has merit, if only to get an interim beta 4 out the door soon. > I see it as a quicker solution to the reliability issue. I think we're all on the same page here, though I'd like to see the patch first, obviously. I've been working on the mifluz merge because I think it needs to be done and b/c I can't see how we can ship a 3.2.0b4 with these database bugs. If there's a smaller bug-fix, that's great. :-) > The only other thing I see as essential for 3.2.0b4 is getting the > 3.1.6 changes in there. Otherwise, there'll be too much confusion I think there are a few remaining minor bugs which we should probably stomp along the way. > Other side projects like defaults.xml are great, but this seems to be > shaping up to be a much bigger task that originally envisioned, what No offense to Gabriele, but I'd rather consider translations to the documentation _after_ we switch to an XML documentation setup. Personally, I'd consider switching to defaults.xml for 3.2.0b4 if I can see a patch in the near future. I'm willing to handle the documentation fixes by hand if I need to do it. -Geoff ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: viaVerio will pay you up to $1,000 for every account that you consolidate with us. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4749864;7604308;v? http://www.viaverio.com/consolidator/osdn.cfm _______________________________________________ htdig-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
