On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Michael Terry <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 20 November 2013 05:49, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> any reason why you sent this to the "inner circle" list but not to >> duplicity talk for a wider audience? >> > > Oh, I just figured this was maintainer talk. Wasn't trying to hide > anything. We can move to duplicity-talk if that's better. > Works either way for me. We might get more interest on the main list. Maybe. Ken's decision, but i doubt he'd like the additional work load. aside from >> the fact that contributors would have to provide two branches henceforth. >> > > I imagine contributors would only ever develop against trunk (0.7). In > the rare occasion where a critical bug should be backported, we can > directly apply the branch to the 0.6 branch and push out a new release. > I'd hope this would be an at-most once a year thing. > At one time 0.7 was slated for PAR inclusion. There was a partial development on it, but it's seen no activity in a couple of years. > btw. Ken, we should remove the 'beta' status from the website! duplicity >> far from perfect is definitely not beta anymore. >> > > Likewise, what's our criteria for dropping the leading 0 in the version? > :) Maybe we can jump from 0.6 to 1.0. Or if that sounds too much like > we're declaring "Mission Accomplished" maybe go from 0.6 to 7.0... :) > It's time to go to either 0.7 or 1.0. If we've really fixed the data corruption bugs, then maybe 1.0. > do future imports really work with any old python version? or are there >> versions that e.g. didn't have the 'unicode_literals' .. so that using >> future imports will enforce minimal minor versions for the python runtime >> e.g. you have to install python 2.6.10 'cause 2.6.1 didn't have it at that >> time? >> > > Python wouldn't introduce new features like that in a point release. > 'unicode_literals' and 'print_function' were both introduced in 2.6. > That's the main reason to want the bump. > I thought one of the problems was librsync not having a presence on 3.x. There may be others missing. > Ken: any idea about all the branches on launchpad? what to do with them? >> keep them for reference? >> > > Which branches? They should all be able to stay around... > > There are a bunch of branches not owned by us. The owners would have to take the time to remove them, I think. Some of them are already merged in, but Launchpad did not remove the reference. Has not been worth the time to chase down why. ...Ken
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
