Stephen Deasey wrote:
I was hoping to make a release now-ish, mainly because I think the
cache and protocols stuff will be a little more destabilizing than the
changes made so far. It would simply provide a somewhat stable
baseline for use/testing while HEAD moves on.
This is what i thought as well
I was going to call it 4.99.0, I wasn't going to make any public
announcements to Freshmeat or anything. A tarball would be cut and
added to the file downloads section. CVS would be tagged. How about
it?
Yes, not public release, more like development
Regarding a final release, I agree a lot more needs to be done. The
protocols stuff would be a defining feature. Docs are required. If
we want other people to use it some kind of website will be needed,
too. I don't know how long any of this will take.
I am not rushing either, just to see what everybody thinks about it
On Apr 10, 2005 3:58 AM, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am 10.04.2005 um 03:05 schrieb Vlad Seryakov:
Do we have any plans to release Naviserver?
IMHO, we still need to resolve nscache, virtual and protocol RFEs but
even without them Naviserver is very and looks much better than AS
already.
Not that i am competing but i am switching to NS whenever possible
already and what can be better proof than that :-))
I am glad that i am on that project with you guys.
Hey, not that fast. I do not think it is necessary to hurry at this
moment.
I would really consider having (whatever) multiprotocol support, nscache
and (perhaps) ttrace accepted and loaded. We are still using the AS for
the
product that we ship and I have yet to verify that all is working fine
with
the NS as well.
The other issue is the documentation. I'm in contact with Andreas
Kupries
from the Tcl project who wrote doctools. I would like to make him do
some
changes to doctools so we can get a nice-looking man-pages as Tcl
project
has. If you look at, for example, "man Tcl_GetStringResult" this is the
output I'm heading at.
Doctools are very good for documenting Tcl code. There is nothing to be
done extra there. The entire tcllib is documented with doctools. There
is
however a problem when you like to document C-level code this way. You
can
do it on per-call basis, so each C-function receives a special manpage,
but
I'd like to have this improved and be able to document many calls
withing
one manpage as usually done elsewhere. At this point, doctools still
would
need some changes.
After this question (doctools yes/no and if not, then what) is resolved
I
could start collecting what's outthere in respect to the documentation.
I see this as a very important step since we've been doing functional
additions
on a weekly basis. It will slip out of the control and we will not know
what
is already in the code after some time. Therefore I consider having
(anykind of)
docs very important.
Zoran
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
naviserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel
--
Vlad Seryakov
571 262-8608 office
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/
