On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Moritz Lennert <mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote: > The initial idea was to create a tech-preview release of grass7, not an > official 7.0 release. Has that changed during the sprint ?
No, this is what happened: beta1 (called like this to maintain consistency with previous pre-releases). See also (pls improve that page!): http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/Release/7.0.0beta-News > If we only do a tech release, I don't think we really need a releasebranch. > Just a short (max 2 weeks) commit freeze to trunk to make sure everything > compiles and runs as expected (with known bugs) and then release. This is likely causing more work than it helps. but we can see how it evolves. > Concerning grass6, I agree that we should probably merge release and dev. > Maybe > > - backport anything from dev to release that is stable enough for release > (if there is anything left to backport) There is a LOT left since some people only feed devbr6 and then don't backport to relbr6... I got a bit tired of comparing it (did so many times in the past). > - publish grass6.4.4 Yes. Since we also fixed the r.li suite, it looks pretty good. > - if there is anything in 6-dev which is not in trunk, then forward-port > that if necessary/feasible Perhaps there is, not idea (see comment above). > - then, as you propose, abandon 6-dev and keep 6-release in maintenance mode Yes. Markus _______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc