I suggest we also include fixes for #601, #608 and #609 in the bugfix release.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/18/13, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 7/18/13, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/17/13, Matevž Bradač <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On 17. Jul, 2013, at 22:37, Alexander Heusingfeld wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> +1 backward compatible bugfix releases should always have a minor >>>> version >>>> >> number >>>> > >>>> > +1, I'm also in favour of 0.6.1. >>>> > >>>> >>>> JFTR , the Bloodhound project does not adopt the semantic versioning >>>> [1]_ [2]_ . It should be ok to proceed with any of 0.6.1 or 0.7.0 , >>>> even if 0.6.1 seems to be a logical choice (that I prefer) . >>>> >>>> .. [1] http://semver.org >>>> >>>> .. [2] http://markmail.org/message/pfjqchk47samthg5 >>>> >>> >>> +1 Release a new bug fix release in the next few days. >>> >>> Thank you for starting this thread and giving the issue visibility. >>> >>> I've merged the two changesets associated with #592 into the 0.6 branch >>> so >>> that we can do some testing. I plan to do testing tomorrow. Please report >>> back if you've tested the changes for a particular configuration and can >>> confirm the issue is fixed on the 0.6 branch. >>> >> >> This is what I did after checking out 0.6 branch : >> > [...] > > - Ran the unit test suite > * test report http://goo.gl/NI2Bf > * ... a few minor failures ! > - Applied patches for #387 and ran the functional test suite > * test report http://goo.gl/ZwCla > * ... only expected failures > > I pasted the details in the wrong place . Sorry > >> Moreover blood-hound.net is running the code in /trunk and : >> >> - References to global: TracLinks are working as expected >> * e.g. in http://dataviz.blood-hound.net/wiki/UserDoc/TracLinks >> - URL generation for product: links is working fine too >> * e.g. in http://dataviz.blood-hound.net/wiki/UserDoc >> >> ... and finally considering feedback received in #594 it seems that >> SCRIPT_NAME issue will be gone after applying proposed patches (... >> though I think I'll write a functional test case for that ... but that >> may be scheduled as part of forthcoming milestones) >> >> IOW we should be really close to move forward with the release since a >> few minor failures are noticed beyond known pending failures / errors. >> We only have a few minor regressions . >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Olemis. >> > > -- > Regards, > > Olemis.
