On 2011-08-12, Roy Chastain wrote: >> Have you got an environment where you can build the 1.x and compact >> framework assemblies (right now I don't)?
> I could at one point a few years back, but probably not now. The same is true for my own environment. > I was referring more to just being able to get the source from the > tree. (For me getting anything SubVersion related working is a BIG > step). :-) Congrats, then. 8-) > That was part my question about duplicating effort. If changes need > to be made to get an environment that supports building, there is no > need for multiple people to tackle it at once. This is true, but at least for the next release we'll need one accessible for the release manager. > In the past I converted the zipped source to VS 2010 keeping the 2.0 > framework target and made that work, but I did not work on tests etc., > so I don't know how valid my efforts were. So far I still don't want to use VS at all but stick with the NAnt build. I'm not familiar enough with the express editions - does anybody know whether VS 2010 Express supports setting the compilation target to 2.0? We can't expect contributors to own one of the non-free editions. >> just as an alternative distribution in addition to one signed with >> the new non-secret key? > Yes, both versions. I think that is necessary to keep the 3rd party > people running until they have time to switch to the new non-secret key. OK, then we agree. >> Otherwise 1.2.11 is long overdue anyway > Yes, I agree, that is way I was suggesting doing the "minimum" which is > basically integrating the currently supplied/tested/gold fixes and > features (such as the log file renaming feature-fix). Feature requests > and fixes that need work go into the 4.0 build tree (and the refactored > 3.5 build tree which was my step 4). This approach should allow for an > "easy" (not hardly) production of the 1.2.11 that would be a drop in for > anyone on 1.2.10 with the fixes/features that have been tested. Yes. > Maybe we have to revisit the bug/feature list and produce 1.2.12 with > the next round before going on to 2.0 tree with less frameworks. Once > we do the 2.0 tree the 1.2.xx tree is frozen and we have less to > maintain because we do not have to worry about 1.0, 1.1, compact etc. > To sum up this paragraph, we produce a new stable long life span > product (1.2.11 or 1.2.12) that people who do not wish to/cannot move > forward can use for a long time to come. Sounds good to me. Stefan
