Hoi Harry, On May 26, 2011 12:42:32 PM Harry van der Wolf wrote: > 2011/5/26 Yuval Levy <goo...@levy.ch> > > The reason why I am asking you is because I know that you and the Mac > > users community are working on a fix for the critical issue affecting > > Hugin on some > > OSX systems. I feel it is your call to make because you are the group of > > people affected by that issue. You have the option to extend the release > > cycle until the issue is solved, or to call it a day and leave it as a > > "known > > issue" for the next cycle. You are the one in the best position to > > judge. > > I said that I didn't care and I have now been thinking how I could have > expressed myself better as it sounds as if I'm not interested and that's > not the impression I want to give. (But I still don't know of a better > expression.)
I did not get the impression that you're not interested. I did get the impression that "either way is good for you". It is the same for me, since either way won't prevent the overall project form moving forward to 2011.2. > I'm in doubt myself about releasing. If we can solve the issue before "end > of the weekend" I would say to wait a little longer, but I have no idea > whether that's feasible. I understand. And yet you have more insight into this than me or most other contributors. > The hidden trap is that we might keep extending the release. It's a theoretical trap. It does not prevent the project from moving on to 2011.2, and if 2011.2 is polished before the bug is fixed, the 2011.0 branch may well dry out without a final release. I don't think it will be the case - 2011.0 has already blossomed for most users and we are dealing with a bug that while critical and annoying is affecting a small and specific system configuration and has a workaround. Calling it final or leaving it an RC indefinitely has only few pratical impications. > If we find a simple solution to 2011.0 after release, we can > decide to release a 2011.0.01 or 2011.0.p1 version (p1 for patch 1), both > as tgz/bz and as bundle and probably only for OSX. Yes, releasing a patched version is an option, and the naming convention would be 2011.0.1. Patches uptick have not been used frequently by this project and are reserved for serious fixes. So far they have been used only for security issues, but a fix for this issue is serious enough to warrant a fix / patched release. > The issue is also that I don't know whether a cmake build on a 10.5 machine > will correctly run (and I'm still not able to build a virtual 10.5 system). Well, there is a lot of burden on your shoulders already. Sometimes you need to draw a line. Users of 10.5 should step up to the plate, or see support limited to what you can and want to support, which is your system (10.6?) > And if the 2011.2 progresses far more rapidly than this release we can > easily bridge the gap and explain it on the SF website. Indeed. I suspect however that 2011.2 is going to be long too. > I agree. Please start the 2011.2 release cycle planning this weekend. I > will give feedback on the possible solution of the issue and we can decide > Sunday at the latest whether we can solve the issue within days and > otherwise we go for the 2011.0 release. OK. I will go with your decision regarding 2011.0 - if you don't have time to do the job, just say that we should declare it final and I'll do it. In passing this to you it was not my intention to load more on your already loaded shoulders, just to make sure that the person who knows more about the issue makes the decision. And for 2011.2, a plan proposal is coming this weekend. Yuv
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
