Yes this proves my point exactly. Everyone, from program authors to
downstream,
needs a clean, tidy, and understandable release methodology. The benefits
are huge.
Also, tarballs? How quaint! ;) *grin*
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Vincent Bernat <ber...@luffy.cx> wrote:
> ❦ 24 juin 2013 20:51 CEST, Kevin Cave <ke...@scarygliders.net> :
>
> > I think the best way to avoid confusion to down-stream users, and
> > especially Distro producers, would be to leave v0.7 exactly as it
> > is. There might be one or two Distros who already package v0.7 as it
> > is - and to suddenly have it use newer code with newer licenses would
> > probably cause a lot of headache - you'd be surprised how many people
> > take licensing VERY seriously :)
>
> The release process of xrdp is quite chaotic. It seems that many people
> talk about 0.7 while it is not officially out. We had exactly the same
> problem with 0.5: there were no changes for a few months, some people
> start assuming that it was released even if we didn't had a tarball,
> people were working on the next version, then we started packaging it
> but it got several new commits and therefore, we didn't know exactly
> which commits to use and which not to use.
>
> Jay, I think that you should release earlier, even when you think that
> it needs more testing. Release a 0.7.0, then a 0.7.1. Or a
> 0.7~rc1. Releasing tarballs helps distros to decide when to
> package. Moreover, it's easy to watch.
> --
> /* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */
> 2.0.38 /usr/src/linux/arch/sparc/kernel/ptrace.c
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
xrdp-devel mailing list
xrdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xrdp-devel
