On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 07:56:37PM +0100, Kolja Waschk wrote: > > We should make a release at some point, 0.10 is way too old. > > Plan: > > 1. Apply some waiting *easy* patches with bugfixes and enhancements, as > I find them in the Tracker on SF or in forks out there (pointers to > others welcome; I can look at ADI and on github for urjtag but are there > more? Which are most interesting / enhanced?) > > 2. Release > > 3. Apply more patches, after discussions and probably some iterations to > get the issue/code/etc. right > > Or should we postpone release 2. after 3.? Now that, as far as I > understand, it's probably too late to rush a release targetted for > Debian experimental ... so "we have time"? > > Regarding git & github, I won't object to move there because that's > certainly a good way to go; but at the moment, I'd rather like to spend > on working on the issues (in SF tracker, and with SVN) and *later* spend > time on migration... Does this sound reasonable? > > Regards, > Kolja
Yes, start with 1. I would like to help with that. Bug #110 https://sourceforge.net/p/urjtag/bugs/110/ is low hanging fruit. It has a patch which I want to apply. Could Source Forge account 'stappers' be added to the priviledged users of the urjtag project? Or if account 'stappers' should allready be able to do so, please tell. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ UrJTAG-development mailing list UrJTAG-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development
