Hi. Am 13.01.2010 09:26, schrieb Marcus Lindblom: > On 2010-01-12 20:40, Dominik Rau wrote: > > Am 12.01.2010 15:17, schrieb Marcus Lindblom: > >>> On 2010-01-12 13:14, Dominik Rau wrote: >>> >>>> If you need help (web space, web design, machines for daily builds, >>>> documentation, domain registrations...) let us (the community) know - >>>> I'm sure that there are more people out there willing to help. However, >>>> you (the core team) have to coordinate that. >>>> >>> Or, failing that, announce that you need help with coordination and >>> announce that the potato is in the air. :) >>> >> Well, I guess it's easier if the guys with the big picture in mind >> define some tasks, but this might be also a matter of taste (and >> involvement in the project). But let me say it that way: Getting the >> potato back in the air is exactely what I try to achieve with this >> mailing list thread. :) >> > Oops. By "you" in my comment I meant the core devs. English is such an > ambiguous language. (Swedish is way better, all the time ;-P) >
Same for German. ;) > (...) > W.r.t. Windows-builds, there's nothing stopping anyone from publishing > such builds themselves (but regular releases do help, as in-the-middle > builds are seldom made externally). Tagged releases (i.e. 2.0rc1) is > something that even I could build and release, and it would be worth the > effort if as people are usully more inclined to more use, test& report > bugs on "official" releases. > True. Setting up a bunch of scripts that generate a nice .msi installer isn't a big deal. Actually, I made some experiments yesterday and it worked out pretty well. I'm using Advanced Installer Pro for that (http://www.advancedinstaller.com/ - The "standard" version is freeware, I guess that should work just fine, too. It allows you also to do pretty things like setting environment variables etc. at install), as I got a license for that. I thing that I could also host this at least temporarily on a our company's server , but I have to check with our web admins first... I can take care of that. > Perhaps we should go to time-based releases, and do one every quarter. > If we start now and declare that what we have now is OpenSG 2.0 10R1 (or > something, the first offical 2.0 release anyway), I'd wager there will > be at least some who shift and try it out. (After all, we've been using > 2.0 for over a year, and others even longer, so it should be reasonably > good, and the pieces that aren't ported over will be reported.) > Same for me. 2.0 never made any bigger problems here for quite some time. However, an important thing about versioning in my opinion is that you got a (previously) defined set of features and you release when they are "done". Time based releases tend to declare unfinished code as stable, something I don't really like (although it's better than nothing). Yours, Dominik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Opensg-users mailing list Opensg-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
