On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Troy A. Griffitts <scr...@crosswire.org>wrote:
> Jonathan Marsden wrote: > >> Troy A. Griffitts wrote: >> Good :) >> >> Is there is list of all known release-critical bugs and TODO items >> somewhere? >> > > No, the bugtracker is clean now for critical 1.6.x changes, as far as I > know (right?). We're only fixing feedback we get on the RCs now. > > The only outstanding issue of which I know is the link bug DM is working on > with osis2mod, but I'm about to tell him that he probably needs to check the > ordinal count of his returned ListKey in a different manner in our osis2mod > utility, so this probably won't be an API change. I think we're just > waiting now to bundle locales and v11n systems. No code changes unless > someone speaks up about something I've overlooked again. > At the moment, current SVN: 1) won't compile with SWIG (versekey changes - I have a patch for these) 2) Breaks disastrously with SWIG once compiled - segfaulting in lots of places... (e.g. this code dies in localemgr destructor: import Sword Sword.VerseKey() ) I'm trying to track the second one down, but it seems to only occur in the bindings... > There have now been several commits since 1.6.0RC2... (I'd >> say exactly now many, but it wasn't tagged... :) >> > > scr...@scribe-laptop:~/src/sword-1.6.0RC2$ svn log -r {`ls -l > configure|cut -f6 -d' '`}:HEAD http://crosswire.org/svn/sword/trunk > > :) > > > is it perhaps time for an RC3 and a freeze on all non-essential changes >> until we can get a >> final 1.6 "out the door"?? >> > > Yeah, I'd say so. I'm about to head out to evening service at Church since > I slept in this morning :) and when I get back, if no one has complained, we > can bundle an RC3 and hopefully go out the door soon. I don't consider > locale or v11n data changes warrant for a new RC, so if we only get those > changes over the next couple days, let's shoot to release a final on Tuesday > evening PST. > > (Creating a branch for the 1.6.0 release, so that new commits intended >> for 1.6.1 could continue on svn head, would also work well, but that >> doesn't seem to be the "SWORD way" of doing things). >> > > :) Again, this release has undergone a little more testing than usual as > we're hoping to 'change our ways' with this BRANCH and force ourselves to > not do API changes in 1.6.x. > > > My plan is to continue to work on 1.6.x for a while (months), improving > speed, filters, and fixing any bugs, and actually USE 1.6.x in some of my > own apps for a while before starting any API-changing additional features > which will require a branch of HEAD to 1.6.x, and 1.7.x to continue in HEAD > at that point. I don't want to have to branch until we necessarily start > 1.7.x API-breaking changes; otherwise we have to keep merging 1.6.x changes > into HEAD, which would make the lines identical till we start 1.7.x work > anyway. Though we will definitely TAG 1.6.0 (which is the same as a branch > anyway in svn-- if we need to change our minds for some odd reason). > How long does that delay mapping between versifications? I think this is relatively important to have - especially if modules start being re-released with av11n - which I would strongly discourage at the moment, seeing as no frontend yet supports them. God Bless, Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. Giôên 3:14 (ESV)
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page