On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:43 PM Félix <[email protected]> wrote:

I'm not sure what to do next in the short term : I cant reproduce what
> Alexey / Gaurami reported : the text selection range bug...!

...

> So , I'm using leoInteg relatively bug-free for long sessions wondering
> why the heck dont I just release this version I've got going as 1.0 instead
> of 0.1.19 beta ...?
>
I'm still working on a few bugs for Leo 6.4 b3, so releasing 0.1.19 beta
seems reasonable.

So here's what I'll do: I'll release 0.1.19 right now tonight - and I'll
> release 1.0 (without changes if nothing pops up) along you with 6.4 so
> they're released the same day.  (I'll keep the issue open on github about
> the selections range.)
>

I agree with this plan. It's time to get the code out the door!

I am dealing with my own difficult-to-pin-down bug. I'll do my best in the
next few days, but I'm not going to delay either Leo b3 or final for the
bug.

One thought about compatibility. Perhaps the client could ask the server
for the server version, say a *version tuple* like (1, 0, 0). This would
allow clients to warn if some features depend on later versions of the
server.

For example, suppose the 'extract' bug ends up requiring leoserver 1.1. The
client could warn if the leoserver is 1.0 and degrade gracefully.

Right now the server defines a __version__ constant. Perhaps this should be
composed from the version tuple.

*Summary*

Thanks for your work trying to track down the extract bug. Imo, this bug
isn't remotely serious enough to delay leoInteg 1.0.

Imo, the server should be able to report the version tuple, but right now I
see no need for the client to do anything with the version.

What do you think?

Edward

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/CAMF8tS3%3D0vwSaFOEZYZaBhF3yY330u9gvq8cpxoeJcJCfM6fug%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to