[Sparkle] Stable Sparkle branch?

[Andy Matuschak]

You're absolutely right that I seriously need to get a release out  
there. This is for several reasons:
1. So people stop using 1.1. Seriously, no one should be using it.
2. So I can have stable localizations.
3. So that I stop working on Sparkle and move on to other projects.

So today, and before I do anything more on Sparkle, I'm going to add  
all the outstanding tasks that aren't yet tickets and classify all the  
current tickets into milestones (1.5 vs. 2.0). Then we'll have a page  
with all the things for 1.5, and I won't add anything more to it.  
Unless there are some terrifying new bugs.

Some of them (like GC support) are going to take some time; a lot of  
others are very simple. Once I get the list up, I could really use  
some help knocking the tasks off it. If anyone has time to finish a  
task, please feel free to assign yourself to it on Trac and submit a  
patch.

- Andy Matuschak

On Mar 5, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Stuart Morgan wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Andy Matuschak  
> <andy at andymatuschak.org> wrote:
>> (note to self: I should discourage people from using 1.1 anymore...)
>
> (Splitting this off, so as not to hijack the original thread...)
>
>> From my perspective as a Sparkle client, cutting a new stable branch
> would be the best way to do that. One of the biggest things going for
> Sparkle is that since a number of apps use it, there is an expectation
> that it has gotten a significant amount of real-world testing. Having
> to just pick a revision number from head and hope that it's stable,
> without having any idea at all of whether or not it's had any
> real-world use, negates a lot of that.
>
> A stable branch would also be very useful for getting current Sparkle
> clients to stay up-to-date; I'd love to update the trunk snapshot we
> took for Camino, but the small bugfixes are are mixed in with
> destabilizing changes (this isn't just idle fear; the commit log for
> trunk makes it clear that there have been a number of big changes, and
> several regressions at various points), which means that we have to
> accept (or backport the fixes for) a number of known bugs, because we
> can't accept the risk of major changes at this point in our schedule.
> A stable branch with just the small, tightly-focused bugfixes would be
> a huge help.
>
> -Stuart
> _______________________________________________
> Sparkle mailing list
> Sparkle at lists.andymatuschak.org
> http://lists.andymatuschak.org/listinfo.cgi/sparkle-andymatuschak.org