Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 22:07:14 +0100, Artur Wroblewski wrote: I really really am confused now. You're pretending your side of the story is how it's always been done in PLD. It's really not. HEAD was always reserved for stable package releases. right... especially in Ra and Ac times... Ra and Ac was detached from HEAD when they were released (i.e. frozen). Th is not. You keep avoiding one simple answer: why don't you want to use DEVEL? This is the tag designated _exactly_ for this purpose. -- Tomasz Pala go...@pld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 23:54:25 +0300, Caleb Maclennan wrote: Artur ... I'm still not clear on what you GAIN by using HEAD instead of DEVEL? In spite of the name, isn't HEAD basically functioning as th-stable (plus some mess)? I assume he gains only one thing - he can commit what he wants to have and made everyone else fixing related stuff. Such 'solution' was the right of release manager so far. -- Tomasz Pala go...@pld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Tomasz Pala go...@polanet.pl wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 22:07:14 +0100, Artur Wroblewski wrote: I really really am confused now. You're pretending your side of the story is how it's always been done in PLD. It's really not. HEAD was always reserved for stable package releases. right... especially in Ra and Ac times... Ra and Ac was detached from HEAD when they were released (i.e. frozen). Th is not. You keep avoiding one simple answer: why don't you want to use DEVEL? This is the tag designated _exactly_ for this purpose. 1. DEVEL is for unstable versions - we are talking about RC. 2. the release announcement contains the following statement The changes in GIMP 2.8rc1 since 2.7.5 are mostly not user-visible. We merely updated the code to work with newer versions of GEGL and babl, fixed GFig rendering issues and used all the translation updates we got to the point. 3. it does not look like there are major issues with 2.8rc1. 4. on top of that, i have tested it with my workflows before sending the very first email proposing the merge on HEAD. 5. babl and gegl are on HEAD anyway. therefore, imho, it is worth _starting_ upgrading (but if you send it to builders, then it is your stupidity). i was quite often putting rc versions on HEAD (depending on a project progress). it was not a problem until now. it seems like some people want some more strict rules about th development - iron them out and propose them on this list. if not, then we are wasting each other time. regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org wrote: 1. DEVEL is for unstable versions - we are talking about RC. If this Release Candidate is stable, then why is it a Release Candidate and not the final version? Please tell us. 2. the release announcement contains the following statement The changes in GIMP 2.8rc1 since 2.7.5 are mostly not user-visible. We merely updated the code to work with newer versions of GEGL and babl, fixed GFig rendering issues and used all the translation updates we got to the point. Oh, so we might as well have 2.7.5 on HEAD? Why not 2.7.1? 3. it does not look like there are major issues with 2.8rc1. http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0110.1/0932.html I am sure 2.4.11 also didn't look like it would have any major issues. 4. on top of that, i have tested it with my workflows Oh wow. Please go away and be back when you test MY workflow and ensure it works flawlessly. therefore, imho, it is worth _starting_ upgrading Then do it on DEVEL and merge to HEAD when the stable version is released and stop trolling already. wolf ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Tomasz Pala wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 23:54:25 +0300, Caleb Maclennan wrote: Artur ... I'm still not clear on what you GAIN by using HEAD instead of DEVEL? In spite of the name, isn't HEAD basically functioning as th-stable (plus some mess)? I assume he gains only one thing - he can commit what he wants to have and made everyone else fixing related stuff. Such 'solution' was the right of release manager so far. Please stop playing stupid. What related stuff? We are talking about *gimp* here, a bitmap graphics *program*, not a critical lib, not even _a_ lib, there is only just a few plugins for it. poldek:/all-avail what-requires libgimp*-2.0.so.0()(64bit) 11 package(s) found: gimp-2.6.12-3.x86_64 gimp-aa-2.6.12-3.x86_64 gimp-libs-2.6.12-3.x86_64 gimp-plugin-dds-2.0.7-1.x86_64 gimp-plugin-gtkam-0.1.17-2.x86_64 gimp-plugin-gutenprint-5.2.7-5.x86_64 gimp-plugin-lqr-0.6.1-1.x86_64 gimp-plugin-ufraw-0.18-4.x86_64 gimp-svg-2.6.12-3.x86_64 sane-frontends-1.0.14-1.x86_64 xsane-0.998-5.x86_64 I don't see a problem with 2.8rc1 on HEAD, especially when gimp.org officially stated EOL on 2.6 line. -- Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsatmimuw.edu.pl bagginsatpld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
W dniu 21 kwietnia 2012 11:39 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org napisał: On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Tomasz Pala go...@polanet.pl wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 22:07:14 +0100, Artur Wroblewski wrote: I really really am confused now. You're pretending your side of the story is how it's always been done in PLD. It's really not. HEAD was always reserved for stable package releases. right... especially in Ra and Ac times... Ra and Ac was detached from HEAD when they were released (i.e. frozen). Th is not. You keep avoiding one simple answer: why don't you want to use DEVEL? This is the tag designated _exactly_ for this purpose. 1. DEVEL is for unstable versions - we are talking about RC. And RC is stable? ;) 2. the release announcement contains the following statement The changes in GIMP 2.8rc1 since 2.7.5 are mostly not user-visible. We merely updated the code to work with newer versions of GEGL and babl, fixed GFig rendering issues and used all the translation updates we got to the point. 3. it does not look like there are major issues with 2.8rc1. Justin Bieber looks like a girl. You see, looks can be deceiving. 4. on top of that, i have tested it with my workflows before sending the very first email proposing the merge on HEAD. Ok, no comment. 5. babl and gegl are on HEAD anyway. therefore, imho, it is worth _starting_ upgrading (but if you send it to builders, then it is your stupidity). i was quite often putting rc versions on HEAD (depending on a project progress). Then you were quite often bending the rules, weren't you? -- I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time. -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek shad...@gmail.com: It may seem unbelievable to you, but there are people who use *uncritical* *programs* for living. How absurd is that! Right? I am thinking about doing some changes to apache. Or maybe mysql. No, python would be the best one to modify. Think breaks everything changes. I'm sure it's OK with you guys, as *I* don't need these *programs*. These are not even libraries, just programs. So no problem there, right baggins? wolf ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
W dniu 21 kwietnia 2012 13:14 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org napisał: 2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek shad...@gmail.com: [...] Stable is boring™. well, why you have switched from the Ac and jumped on the development distro line? you know, Ac was supposed to be the stable version with multiple releases until it got abandoned by people like you. i have proposed TH-STABLE tag. not enough for you? then create new stable line. it is simple like that. No. HEAD is your proposed TH-STABLE, and DEVEL is for alphas, betas and RCs ;) It's as simple as that. -- I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time. -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek shad...@gmail.com: W dniu 21 kwietnia 2012 13:14 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org napisał: 2012/4/21 Bartosz Świątek shad...@gmail.com: [...] Stable is boring(tm). well, why you have switched from the Ac and jumped on the development distro line? you know, Ac was supposed to be the stable version with multiple releases until it got abandoned by people like you. i have proposed TH-STABLE tag. not enough for you? then create new stable line. it is simple like that. No. HEAD is your proposed TH-STABLE, and DEVEL is for alphas, betas and RCs ;) It's as simple as that. there is no direct mapping between th ready or th test and CVS HEAD. check by yourself. regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:56:08 +0200, Jan Rękorajski wrote: I assume he gains only one thing - he can commit what he wants to have and made everyone else fixing related stuff. Such 'solution' was the right of release manager so far. Please stop playing stupid. Please stop screwing the rules. What related stuff? Plugins mentioned in initial mail? We are talking about *gimp* here, a bitmap graphics *program*, not a critical lib, not even _a_ lib, there is only just a few plugins for it. Sure, we might remove them. It's only just a few packages after all, isn't it? Nobody uses them. They've appeared in our CVS by some magic. I don't see a problem with 2.8rc1 on HEAD, I see a problem with disobedience for shit. All the thread passed without a single argument, any rationale or profit. If that is the way PLD is supposed to be developed, we are indeed wasting our time for nothing. -- Tomasz Pala go...@pld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 09:59:51PM +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: That might explain PLD deterioration. To whom it may concern (but in Russian): http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2012-April/193673.html http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2012-April/193855.html Igor is thinking -- and working hard -- on repository quality and automation for quite a few years already. Hope that some thoughts expressed or collected by him are useful to PLD either. PS: as we say here, it's the season of lacking vitamins. :) -- WBR, Michael Shigorin m...@altlinux.ru -- Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
2012/4/20 Bartosz Świątek shad...@gmail.com: W dniu 20 kwietnia 2012 01:03 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org napisał: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Caleb Maclennan ca...@pld-linux.org wrote: 2012/4/19 Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org: hi, i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. any argument against? btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. shall they be removed, rebuilt? regards, w Yes. That is an RC for a major release version and there aren't any show-stopper bugs or comparability issues in the previous release that would force us to skip ahead to get the bugs ironed out. At this point I'm having a heck of a time keeping stable systems using TH which is supposed to be STABLE. Adding more backwards incompatible libraries to the dependency mess is going to make that worse, not better. Ac is stable release for which we have appropriate branch and Th is in constant development mode, isn't it? I am asking because I am bit lost with above arguments - do we have some new rules for Th? When they changed? :P You tell us. AFAIK official rules state that no Betas and RCs are allowed on HEAD and exceptions need to be discussed. I can't remember to have read any new rules lately that differ from what I just said, so if you know something more, please share it with us. I do not remember discussing such rule. But I remember that if a package on HEAD has non-integral release number (i.e. 0.1) then it means that the work is still in progress. To repeat myself cvs head != Th ftp. If you send it to the builders, then it is your fault. In general CVS != FTP, but as we all know the first step to get a package to main FTP is to put it on CVS HEAD. Putting there unstable versions is very confusing. The release number is not confusing, IMHO. Let me rephrase - is anyone planning any work related to Gimp 2.6 on CVS HEAD in near future? If not, then I will do the merge from DEVEL (but please let non-IRC people know if any rules changed regarding Th and what's the plan). That's not an argument. Noone's gonna know if for some reason Gimp 2.6 will need to be patched, fixed, rebuilt or our chief only knows what else. What's the problem with having an _unstable_ version on DEVEL anyway? What is so importand in this version to you so desperately need to put it on HEAD? The gegl and babl are stable now and they are on HEAD. IMHO, it is time to _start_ (as in CVS) migrating to gimp 2.8... until you know that there is something wrong with 2.6 and will need fixing soon (I assume no as there are ftp related arguments only so far)? Regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Artur Wroblewski wrote: hi, i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. any argument against? Just move 2.6 to GIMP_2_6 branch, keep fractional release on head and yell if someone tries to send it to builders. btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. shall they be removed, rebuilt? Updated and rebuilt if possible, removed iff they don't work with 2.8 and can't be fixed. -- Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsatmimuw.edu.pl bagginsatpld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
Ac is stable release for which we have appropriate branch and Th is in constant development mode, isn't it? This is one area where PLD's release system is actually pretty wonky. Other than a few emebeded or very static applications, AC is simply too old to use for most stable systems. This puts the pressure on TH -- as in reality, most folks use PLD for it's rolling constant development branch. Anything that breaks that breaks production systems. I am asking because I am bit lost with above arguments - do we have some new rules for Th? When they changed? :P As far as I know, nothing has changed. This has been my understanding of the status quo since I started using PLD nearly a decade ago. To repeat myself cvs head != Th ftp. If you send it to the builders, then it is your fault. I understand the difference beteween HEAD and FTP servers. The thing is, by introducing unstable packages to HEAD, you make life complicated for some of us. I for one compile a lot of software using builder from CVS HEAD. Sometimes if there are holdups on TH, stuff will actually be ahead of TH in my personal repos. When something gets introduced to HEAD that is a complete mis-match with what is currently in TH, it makes building software harder. Let's turn this question around. Since you're the one asking to do something non-standard, what is your rational? What do you gain by putting an RC version in HEAD? If you are compiling it anyway, why can't you just use the DEVEL tag until the package goes stable and people should start testing it to go into TH? Caleb ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Caleb Maclennan ca...@pld-linux.org wrote: Ac is stable release for which we have appropriate branch and Th is in constant development mode, isn't it? This is one area where PLD's release system is actually pretty wonky. Other than a few emebeded or very static applications, AC is simply too old to use for most stable systems. This puts the pressure on TH -- as in reality, most folks use PLD for it's rolling constant development branch. Anything that breaks that breaks production systems. it seems this discussion would not happen if not the problem summarized above. well... if you need more stable line, then why not to create one with appropriate branch in CVS? of course, the problem is that somebody needs to maintain that, which I believe is full time job and lack of resources causes the stable branch to freeze. therefore, imho, it is not good idea to link CVS HEAD with stable line - and that was the result of similar discussions in the past if i reckon well. if you need more reassurance, then what about introducing TH-STABLE tag and sending packages to builders only when they are tagged with above? [...] regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
well... if you need more stable line, then why not to create one with appropriate branch in CVS? of course, the problem is that somebody needs to maintain that, which I believe is full time job and lack of resources causes the stable branch to freeze. therefore, imho, it is not good idea to link CVS HEAD with stable line - and that was the result of similar discussions in the past if i reckon well. if you need more reassurance, then what about introducing TH-STABLE tag and sending packages to builders only when they are tagged with above? A tag scheme like that could of course work. Again I would ask ask how, other than different tag names, this is different from the status quo. Please answer this: what do you see as the advantage to having an RC release tagged HEAD instead of DEVEL? How does merging DEVEL into HEAD before it's going to be a candidate for FTP make life any different for you? What's the motivation? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to accomplish and thus I feel like you're presenting a solution to something that isn't a problem and thereby introducing a problem. Does that make sense? Caleb ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
W dniu 20 kwietnia 2012 20:57 użytkownik Caleb Maclennan ca...@pld-linux.org napisał: well... if you need more stable line, then why not to create one with appropriate branch in CVS? of course, the problem is that somebody needs to maintain that, which I believe is full time job and lack of resources causes the stable branch to freeze. therefore, imho, it is not good idea to link CVS HEAD with stable line - and that was the result of similar discussions in the past if i reckon well. if you need more reassurance, then what about introducing TH-STABLE tag and sending packages to builders only when they are tagged with above? A tag scheme like that could of course work. Again I would ask ask how, other than different tag names, this is different from the status quo. Please answer this: what do you see as the advantage to having an RC release tagged HEAD instead of DEVEL? How does merging DEVEL into HEAD before it's going to be a candidate for FTP make life any different for you? What's the motivation? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to accomplish and thus I feel like you're presenting a solution to something that isn't a problem and thereby introducing a problem. Does that make sense? Caleb, stop trolling*! You're asking very inconvenient questions :) *that's the no. 1 answer to all inconvenient questions. P.S. just to make sure we understand each other, I'm on your side, but I feel that arguing will not change anything, you can have the best reasoning (and you do) but they won't understand anyway and will ignore you if you don't agree with them. -- I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time. -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On 20.04.2012 20:57, Caleb Maclennan wrote: well... if you need more stable line, then why not to create one with appropriate branch in CVS? of course, the problem is that somebody needs to maintain that, which I believe is full time job and lack of resources causes the stable branch to freeze. therefore, imho, it is not good idea to link CVS HEAD with stable line - and that was the result of similar discussions in the past if i reckon well. if you need more reassurance, then what about introducing TH-STABLE tag and sending packages to builders only when they are tagged with above? A tag scheme like that could of course work. Again I would ask ask how, other than different tag names, this is different from the status quo. Please answer this: what do you see as the advantage to having an RC release tagged HEAD instead of DEVEL? How does merging DEVEL into HEAD before it's going to be a candidate for FTP make life any different for you? What's the motivation? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to accomplish and thus I feel like you're presenting a solution to something that isn't a problem and thereby introducing a problem. Does that make sense? True, I don't understand this problem either... -- Andrzej ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
W dniu 20 kwietnia 2012 21:28 użytkownik Andrzej Zawadzki zawa...@gmail.com napisał: On 20.04.2012 20:57, Caleb Maclennan wrote: well... if you need more stable line, then why not to create one with appropriate branch in CVS? of course, the problem is that somebody needs to maintain that, which I believe is full time job and lack of resources causes the stable branch to freeze. therefore, imho, it is not good idea to link CVS HEAD with stable line - and that was the result of similar discussions in the past if i reckon well. if you need more reassurance, then what about introducing TH-STABLE tag and sending packages to builders only when they are tagged with above? A tag scheme like that could of course work. Again I would ask ask how, other than different tag names, this is different from the status quo. Please answer this: what do you see as the advantage to having an RC release tagged HEAD instead of DEVEL? How does merging DEVEL into HEAD before it's going to be a candidate for FTP make life any different for you? What's the motivation? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to accomplish and thus I feel like you're presenting a solution to something that isn't a problem and thereby introducing a problem. Does that make sense? True, I don't understand this problem either... Let me please quote our chief of everything... you don't have to. -- I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time. -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On 20.04.2012 21:38, Bartosz Świątek wrote: W dniu 20 kwietnia 2012 21:28 użytkownik Andrzej Zawadzki zawa...@gmail.com napisał: On 20.04.2012 20:57, Caleb Maclennan wrote: well... if you need more stable line, then why not to create one with appropriate branch in CVS? of course, the problem is that somebody needs to maintain that, which I believe is full time job and lack of resources causes the stable branch to freeze. therefore, imho, it is not good idea to link CVS HEAD with stable line - and that was the result of similar discussions in the past if i reckon well. if you need more reassurance, then what about introducing TH-STABLE tag and sending packages to builders only when they are tagged with above? A tag scheme like that could of course work. Again I would ask ask how, other than different tag names, this is different from the status quo. Please answer this: what do you see as the advantage to having an RC release tagged HEAD instead of DEVEL? How does merging DEVEL into HEAD before it's going to be a candidate for FTP make life any different for you? What's the motivation? I honestly don't understand what you're trying to accomplish and thus I feel like you're presenting a solution to something that isn't a problem and thereby introducing a problem. Does that make sense? True, I don't understand this problem either... Let me please quote our chief of everything... you don't have to. Smartass? ;-) Bartoszu you need to be more consistent :-P http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.pld.devel.polish/34668 Last sentence... -- Andrzej ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Maclennan ca...@pld-linux.org wrote: well... if you need more stable line, then why not to create one with appropriate branch in CVS? of course, the problem is that somebody needs to maintain that, which I believe is full time job and lack of resources causes the stable branch to freeze. therefore, imho, it is not good idea to link CVS HEAD with stable line - and that was the result of similar discussions in the past if i reckon well. if you need more reassurance, then what about introducing TH-STABLE tag and sending packages to builders only when they are tagged with above? A tag scheme like that could of course work. Again I would ask ask how, other than different tag names, this is different from the status quo. it is very simple. th-stable, ac-stable or whatever... provide meaningful, self documenting names to things. you want to discuss strategy on CVS HEAD, then... well... you have few things to consider - in the past Ra or Ac could be on CVS HEAD, which one it should be back then? - now it could be Th... but why not Ti? - what about future if some other distro lines happen? again, meaningful tag names do not cause above problems. [...] w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
Caleb, stop trolling*! You're asking very inconvenient questions :) Wink wink. I'm not actually trying to troll or be inconvenient. I'm also not interested in pointing fingers. I am a system administrator having a hard time keeping up with all the broken systems. I think a contributing factor to that is PLD's current lack of a clear set of release/use/development patterns. I'd like to see these develop not deteriorate. If we're going to all keep making use of this thing, our practices as commiters need to at least gradually grow in both innovation and maintainability. When things come along that appear to be steps in the opposite of these directions, I think we should bring them up as something to solve. So I'm listening. How does this proposed CVS tagging of RC as HEAD further these ends? What's the gain? How can we all help? Caleb ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
W dniu 20 kwietnia 2012 22:26 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org napisał: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Maclennan ca...@pld-linux.org wrote: well... if you need more stable line, then why not to create one with appropriate branch in CVS? of course, the problem is that somebody needs to maintain that, which I believe is full time job and lack of resources causes the stable branch to freeze. therefore, imho, it is not good idea to link CVS HEAD with stable line - and that was the result of similar discussions in the past if i reckon well. if you need more reassurance, then what about introducing TH-STABLE tag and sending packages to builders only when they are tagged with above? A tag scheme like that could of course work. Again I would ask ask how, other than different tag names, this is different from the status quo. it is very simple. th-stable, ac-stable or whatever... provide meaningful, self documenting names to things. you want to discuss strategy on CVS HEAD, then... well... you have few things to consider I really really am confused now. You're pretending your side of the story is how it's always been done in PLD. It's really not. HEAD was always reserved for stable package releases. - in the past Ra or Ac could be on CVS HEAD, which one it should be back then? Now Th is on HEAD, rolling development, doesn't mean on HEAD can be anything. Try to understand, there're some people here who actually care if the OS that they use is stable. - now it could be Th... but why not Ti? It is. Th is on HEAD and that's a fact. Why not Ti? Because Ti is now TLD and totally separated from PLD (thanks to one individual who couldn't stand sharing ep09 with Ti, even though it's not his machine). - what about future if some other distro lines happen? Unofficial distro lines were always banished to other branches. again, meaningful tag names do not cause above problems. So, what causes your problem with using DEVEL for your unstable Gimp release? You seem to think that everyone else needs good arguments to keep the things like they are now. The fact is that you need good reasoning to put unstable releases on a branch considered stable. -- I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time. -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: th stable (Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins)
2012/4/20 Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org: it is very simple. th-stable, ac-stable or whatever... provide meaningful, self documenting names to things. Hey guys, how does this compute? My version control experience is mostly subversion with a bit of git lately. CVS is still black magic to me. Would a change like this (Tagging stable stuff that's headed to ftp somewhere instead of pulling HEAD?) Also to throw this out there, how does all this figure into the git migration? Are we barking up a tree that is about to be felled anyway? Artur ... I'm still not clear on what you GAIN by using HEAD instead of DEVEL? In spite of the name, isn't HEAD basically functioning as th-stable (plus some mess)? Caleb ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
W dniu 19 kwietnia 2012 21:32 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org napisał: hi, i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. any argument against? Yes. New gegl and babl break API/ABI compatibility with earlier versions. Gimp 2.8 RC1 needs them. Also as statet on gimp.org, they need to fix some bugs and are looking for more bugs. That's always a release stoper. But I'm sure noone else will find these arguments critical and we will soon see more and more Alpha, Beta and RC version on HEAD and main ftp. -- I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time. -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
2012/4/19 Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org: hi, i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. any argument against? btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. shall they be removed, rebuilt? regards, w Yes. That is an RC for a major release version and there aren't any show-stopper bugs or comparability issues in the previous release that would force us to skip ahead to get the bugs ironed out. At this point I'm having a heck of a time keeping stable systems using TH which is supposed to be STABLE. Adding more backwards incompatible libraries to the dependency mess is going to make that worse, not better. Caleb ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
2012/4/19 Bartosz Świątek shad...@gmail.com: W dniu 19 kwietnia 2012 21:32 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org napisał: hi, i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. any argument against? Yes. New gegl and babl break API/ABI compatibility with earlier versions. Gimp 2.8 RC1 needs them. Also as statet on gimp.org, they need to fix some bugs and are looking for more bugs. That's always a release stoper. But I'm sure noone else will find these arguments critical and we will soon see more and more Alpha, Beta and RC version on HEAD and main ftp. I was asking to put it on HEAD. _Not_ to put it on ftp. Regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Caleb Maclennan ca...@pld-linux.org wrote: 2012/4/19 Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org: hi, i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. any argument against? btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. shall they be removed, rebuilt? regards, w Yes. That is an RC for a major release version and there aren't any show-stopper bugs or comparability issues in the previous release that would force us to skip ahead to get the bugs ironed out. At this point I'm having a heck of a time keeping stable systems using TH which is supposed to be STABLE. Adding more backwards incompatible libraries to the dependency mess is going to make that worse, not better. Ac is stable release for which we have appropriate branch and Th is in constant development mode, isn't it? I am asking because I am bit lost with above arguments - do we have some new rules for Th? When they changed? :P To repeat myself cvs head != Th ftp. If you send it to the builders, then it is your fault. Let me rephrase - is anyone planning any work related to Gimp 2.6 on CVS HEAD in near future? If not, then I will do the merge from DEVEL (but please let non-IRC people know if any rules changed regarding Th and what's the plan). Regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins
W dniu 20 kwietnia 2012 01:03 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org napisał: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Caleb Maclennan ca...@pld-linux.org wrote: 2012/4/19 Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org: hi, i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD. any argument against? btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. shall they be removed, rebuilt? regards, w Yes. That is an RC for a major release version and there aren't any show-stopper bugs or comparability issues in the previous release that would force us to skip ahead to get the bugs ironed out. At this point I'm having a heck of a time keeping stable systems using TH which is supposed to be STABLE. Adding more backwards incompatible libraries to the dependency mess is going to make that worse, not better. Ac is stable release for which we have appropriate branch and Th is in constant development mode, isn't it? I am asking because I am bit lost with above arguments - do we have some new rules for Th? When they changed? :P You tell us. AFAIK official rules state that no Betas and RCs are allowed on HEAD and exceptions need to be discussed. I can't remember to have read any new rules lately that differ from what I just said, so if you know something more, please share it with us. To repeat myself cvs head != Th ftp. If you send it to the builders, then it is your fault. In general CVS != FTP, but as we all know the first step to get a package to main FTP is to put it on CVS HEAD. Putting there unstable versions is very confusing. Let me rephrase - is anyone planning any work related to Gimp 2.6 on CVS HEAD in near future? If not, then I will do the merge from DEVEL (but please let non-IRC people know if any rules changed regarding Th and what's the plan). That's not an argument. Noone's gonna know if for some reason Gimp 2.6 will need to be patched, fixed, rebuilt or our chief only knows what else. What's the problem with having an _unstable_ version on DEVEL anyway? What is so importand in this version to you so desperately need to put it on HEAD? -- I'm living proof if you do one thing right in your career, you can coast for a long time. A LONG time. -Guy Kawasaki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
