Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 28.05.2010 15:07, schrieb Philipp Gröschler:
On 28.05.2010 10:23, CooSoft Support wrote:
I couldn't agree more with Thomas's point about Monotone dying if we are
not careful. It's a psychological thing. `Oh it's only at 0.xxx - still
unstable'.
Sure it's
Philipp Gröschler wrote:
On 28.05.2010 10:23, CooSoft Support wrote:
I couldn't agree more with Thomas's point about Monotone dying if we are
not careful. It's a psychological thing. `Oh it's only at 0.xxx - still
unstable'.
Sure it's psychological and nowadays in the age of OSS,
One slight deviating point about breaking BC with au stdio... I feel
what ever applications we provide that use it should strive to cope with
BC breakages. E.g. Monotone:AutomateStdio works from 0.35 to the current
release as does mtn-browse which relies on it.
Hopefully though with the
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Derek Scherger de...@echologic.com wrote:
As I've announced earlier I'd like to start the machinery for the next
monotone release now that the database management branch has landed. So
if you have anything you'd also really like to see in the next monotone
Am 27.05.2010 18:54, schrieb Jack Lloyd:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:38:32AM +0200, Thomas Keller wrote:
Apropos release - a fellow developer reminded me that we *might* want to
set a proper release number for the next release (you know what I'm
talking about, 1.0...) - given the fact that
I couldn't agree more with Thomas's point about Monotone dying if we are
not careful. It's a psychological thing. `Oh it's only at 0.xxx - still
unstable'. We have all done that at some point when looking at rival
projects as an end user in a hurry to get something up and running. It's
only if
CooSoft Support supp...@coosoft.plus.com writes:
I looked at the release
notes and documentation regarding au stdio changes and read up on the
new update command. Virtually all other au commands if not all simply
mention what comes out on stdout by implication (apart from the
barfing to
On 28.05.2010 10:23, CooSoft Support wrote:
I couldn't agree more with Thomas's point about Monotone dying if we are
not careful. It's a psychological thing. `Oh it's only at 0.xxx - still
unstable'.
Sure it's psychological and nowadays in the age of OSS, versioning
schemes or rather the
Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz writes:
After all we should all agree that monotone has been proven stable for
many, many versions now and that we (the original and today's
developers) should be proud of it, so proud that we should dare to put a
proper version label on this darn thing.
Am 28.05.2010 15:07, schrieb Philipp Gröschler:
On 28.05.2010 10:23, CooSoft Support wrote:
I couldn't agree more with Thomas's point about Monotone dying if we are
not careful. It's a psychological thing. `Oh it's only at 0.xxx - still
unstable'.
Sure it's psychological and nowadays in the
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz wrote:
I agree that continueing the current versioning scheme, just with a
prefixed 1., won't make much sense any longer, but I'm against
complicating this too much. A new easy rule for now could be:
1) if a release only
Derek Scherger spake unto us the following wisdom:
1) if a release only consists of bug fixes or has small, not BC-breaking
improvements (esp. in respect to automate), raise the patch release
2) if a release has bigger improvements or breaks BC, raise the minor
version
3) if a major
Hi all!
As I've announced earlier I'd like to start the machinery for the next
monotone release now that the database management branch has landed. So
if you have anything you'd also really like to see in the next monotone
version, please finish it up and merge it into mainline (I remember we
Sounds like a great idea to me, especially the 1.0 bit :-)).
However one minor point about the impending release (what ever
version it may be) :-(...
I was looking at the changes for the next release and noticed the au
update command. Great, but why does it's progress messages go
Am 27.05.2010 10:22, schrieb CooSoft Support:
Sounds like a great idea to me, especially the 1.0 bit :-)).
However one minor point about the impending release (what ever
version it may be) :-(...
I was looking at the changes for the next release and noticed the au
update command.
Am 27.05.2010 12:56, schrieb Stephen Leake:
Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz writes:
Am 27.05.2010 10:22, schrieb CooSoft Support:
Sounds like a great idea to me, especially the 1.0 bit :-)).
However one minor point about the impending release (what ever
version it may be) :-(...
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz wrote:
Hi all!
As I've announced earlier I'd like to start the machinery for the next
monotone release now that the database management branch has landed. So
if you have anything you'd also really like to see in the next
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:38:32AM +0200, Thomas Keller wrote:
Apropos release - a fellow developer reminded me that we *might* want to
set a proper release number for the next release (you know what I'm
talking about, 1.0...) - given the fact that we're still recognized as
alpha software in
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 12:54 -0400, Jack Lloyd wrote:
While 1.0 is good for a public image perspective, is it something that
you want to lock yourself into?
As an user of Monotone, I would just like to mention my thoughts. I'd
prefer a move to the major.minor.patch model, with some clear rules
Thomas Keller wrote:
Am 27.05.2010 12:56, schrieb Stephen Leake:
Thomas Keller m...@thomaskeller.biz writes:
Am 27.05.2010 10:22, schrieb CooSoft Support:
Sounds like a great idea to me, especially the 1.0 bit :-)).
However one minor point about the impending release
Hi,
2010/5/27 Jack Lloyd ll...@randombit.net
I can think of a few things that might potentially happen that might
be harder to pull off post-1.0:
- s/netxx/asio/
AFAIR, it's only implementation detail. Do we wan't to change netsync
protocol together with asio introduction ?
- netsync
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:26:22AM +0200, Zbigniew Zag??rski wrote:
Hi,
2010/5/27 Jack Lloyd ll...@randombit.net
I can think of a few things that might potentially happen that might
be harder to pull off post-1.0:
??- s/netxx/asio/
AFAIR, it's only implementation detail. Do we wan't
On 05/27/2010 06:08 PM, Jack Lloyd wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:26:22AM +0200, Zbigniew Zag??rski wrote:
Hi,
2010/5/27 Jack Lloydll...@randombit.net
I can think of a few things that might potentially happen that might
be harder to pull off post-1.0:
??- s/netxx/asio/
AFAIR, it's only
On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:47 -0500, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
Is that a reasonable timeframe for a major version change, or are
they
supposed to last longer than that?
I say, make your own time table. If you want to release a new major
version every three months, that's fine with me. The main
24 matches
Mail list logo
