[Sparkle] Stable Sparkle branch?

[Rob Napier]

Is it possible for you to unassign yourself from any issue that you're not
currently working? I'm not used to Trac, so I don't know if it works like
that. And make sure that the 1.5 Milestone is assigned only to things that
are requirements for 1.5? I'll try to attack some stuff on Wednesday or
Thursday night.

-Rob

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Andy Matuschak <andy at andymatuschak.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sparkle mailing list
> Sparkle at lists.andymatuschak.org
> http://lists.andymatuschak.org/listinfo.cgi/sparkle-andymatuschak.org
>



-- 
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, Printer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.andymatuschak.org/pipermail/sparkle-andymatuschak.org/attachments/20080311/2f87a057/attachment.htm