Re: Moduleset Reorganization -- Take two
On tis, 2010-10-12 at 14:03 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote: On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 15:03 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Good point. It's fair to expect projects not using the GNOME development cycle to publish a schedule with freezes. You would allow modules in the module sets that don't follow the GNOME schedule? Then it loses all meaning. Once again, the purpose of the release schedule (of which the module sets are just a part) is to release software. I agree here. I'm not sure how the i18n and docs teams are supposed to do their jobs if they have to track dozens of different schedules. Maybe those teams should only devote resources to an application on the occasion that a release matches up with the GNOME schedule? This would allow for apps to have more or less frequent releases, but at the same time encourage them to have their releases match up with the GNOME schedule whenever possible. With every new GNOME release, we would compose the release of the latest stable version of all the applications, right? So when we tell the application developers to pick a release to be part of a stable GNOME and to be mentioned in the release notes and so on, why don't we require that specific version of that application to follow the UI/string freeze for the 3.x.0 version of GNOME, and that the application releases a stable version - either a new stable, or a point release - when tarballs are due, if there are changes such as new translations? Thus, if you want to have a 4 month release schedule, that means you'd pretty much have to release with GNOME once every 18 months, and for the two gnome releases in between you'd just release updated translations for months old stable versions. If you want to have a 12 months release schedule, you'd still have to provide point releases every 6 months. Applications would still have the option to ignore the schedule for GNOME's unstable releases, as well it's bugfix releases. As many distributions are on a GNOME + a few weeks schedule these days, it should be in the application developers' interest to at least do a bug fix release at or around GNOME release time, so it shouldn't be too much of a burden to fulfill. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: TARBALLS DUE: GNOME 2.26.2 Stable Release
On fre, 2009-05-15 at 16:35 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On 05/15/2009 04:24 PM, Hubert Figuiere wrote: On 05/15/2009 03:53 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: Don't you know that Monday is a bank holiday in Canada?!?!?!?! More time for hacking :-) But releases (specially stable releases!) are not to get hacking done. It's to get whatever hacking you have in tree out to the distros! The distros should be able to wait until Tuesday for their bribe money, shouldn't they? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: fast-forward only policy
On tis, 2009-05-05 at 23:10 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer. What would be easier to understand? '1-2' or 'stable'? If I want the sources for the gedit in Gnome 2.26, cloning gedit's repository and checking out the branch 'gnome-2-26' sounds like an easy-to-remember way to do it. If I want the sources for gedit in Gnome 2.24, I can probably deduce that 'gnome-2-24' sounds like a branch to look for. To more-or-less completely replace the contents of the branch 'stable' every six months, and keep tags to those revisions to make sure they can be retrieved and turned into their own branches if anyone wants, sounds like branch abuse to me. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME DVCS Survey Results
On sön, 2009-01-04 at 23:58 +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Luca Ferretti elle@libero.it wrote: Il giorno dom, 04/01/2009 alle 16.11 -0500, Matthias Clasen ha scritto: It seems pretty clear to me that any 'homegrown' system like this is not suitable as a longterm, stable solution for a project the size of gnome. BTW, once switched to DVCS, how much disk space I should have in order to perform a full GNOME Desktop build with jhbuild? A WebKit build from git needs ~740MB :-/ How much does it consume if it's a svn checkout? I heard (don't know if it's true or not) git repo usually takes less diskspace then svn checkout. This page seems to support this claim: A complete git repo is usually smaller than a complete SVN one (according to common knowlege - as in, I didn't run any benchmarks), but one commonly only checks out the /trunk subdirectory in subversion, while git usually checks out the whole project history, including all branches - it could be a substantial amount of data you don't check out with SVN. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
