On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 12:10 +0000, Philip Potter wrote: Hi Phil,
> > As a lurker, user, and very occasional hacker, I wasn't at all aware > of this branch. I don't honestly know where most of the discussion of > padre happens, but my impression is that it's split between this list, > IRC, and trac. A lot of chat does happen on IRC, which it seems most of us hang out in, the dev list itself probably suffers as a result insomuch as how much information gets passed onto a wider audience. IRC works well I think as there is a fairly reasonable overlap timewise for the .au folk and other parts of the world who seem to be hacking on the project. I do think though that it would be good to see more traffic for Padre stuff hit the list... the only reason I knew of Steffans branch was that I caught a breif mention of it in IRC either from a commit or just a simple mention of it in passing. > > I'd love to have this in the upcoming (hyped) 0.56 release. But it's > > quite risky and it might be better to stick with a). What do you guys think? > > I don't like the idea of releasing something which hasn't been tested. We are all in a agreement with this. As such it's just a matter of picking a good time to do the release.. I'm waiting to hear back if the changes minus Steffan's are done and stable and I'll do the release. Then we're free to have the merge into trunk with no 0.57 until it's working, however likely some releases will have the caveat that there may be some issue and to report it ASAP to the list or IRC or trac so it can be fixed and a new release done up. > Padre is now mature enough that I use it as my usual IDE to get things > done, and I think CPAN releases should aspire to some level of > stability. For the most part, I'm not sure we've really suffered a release that was such a problem that there was an 'emergency' release to follow it. We've been tracking along with a release every 2-3 weeks for some time, which is generally a good thing. > By releasing undertested code, you're making testing the > ordinary user's job instead of the people who choose to be involved > with the development process. True, but anyone who uses an application will find ways to do things developers can't always think of and test, however your point is valid in the context of releasing untested code before a release is not conducive to instilling goodwill with the user base. > > I support the idea that 0.56 should be left as is, and we either fold > the branch into trunk after release or push to get as many people > testing the branch as possible. I'm going to check out the branch > right now and compare it to 0.55 on my machine. > That will be great, however if you want to wait, I'd say not long after 0.56 is released it should be merged into trunk. > tl;dr version: I am very happy to test this branch, provided I can do > so on my own terms :) I think we need to make sure branches like the one Steffan has made be announced to the mailing list as well to ensure wider coverage... BTW, are you in Canberra? I seem to recall the name back a while when we tried to have a few Perl Monger meetings.. only to find none of the proposed dates and times worked for me and I made none of them. Pete.
_______________________________________________ Padre-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev
