Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
I think so. And probably it should be called rc-1.
The open question is what to do with beta branch.
After Viktor's cleanup in devel code (mostly in
contrib) the diff file between branches has over
10MB. I can sync it but probably it will be much
easier to remove old beta branch create new new
one from current devel.
Hi,
if we are going to have rc-1, we can just remove old and create new
branch for 1.0. tag/1.0-rc1 will be the first tag of branch/1.0
We should also have a feeling (or better definition/agreement) what is
fix and what is new code, and commit fixes to branch/1.0. Is redesign of
some API a fix or new feature? Is redesign of make system a fix? Are new
FS functions for date/attribute management and OS2 minizip support a new
feature or a fix? Is new hbinet.c a fix?
Otherwise one of two things can happen:
1) fixes are committed to thunk only and branch/1.0 is not used;
2) new features will be committed to branch/1.0 and this makes branch
unstable.
I have a feeling that the first thing has more chances to happen. We
should limit definition of "fix" to be some local fixes of existing
code, but not redesign of existing functionality. Because many things in
Harbour needs redesign. If we want to include redesigned hbinet, hbole,
gt with multiple windows, etc. in 1.0, it is not time to have rc1 now,
but we must work hard on existing code.
If we want to release 1.0 now, let's limit it for local fixes and
include redesigned features in 1.2. (I propose to use 1.1, 1.3, etc. for
unstable (thunk) versions).
Best regards,
Mindaugas
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
