On 02.01.2023 01:52, Gilbert Barmwater wrote:
See below...
On 1/1/2023 6:38 PM, ooRexx wrote:
On 1. Jan 2023, at 17:43, Rony G. Flatscher <[email protected]> wrote:
Brief info on today's work:
* updating the tickets from "pending" and "accepted" with no open items to
"closed": did not
write a utility after finding out about "bulk-edit", all four categories
got updated
* added missing processedTickets.rex utility to new
main/trunk/support/sourceForge
* updated text files in main/trunk (changing 4.2.0->5.0.0, 5.0.0->5.1.0), also
release-steps.txt which got updated to reflect what I was able to learn
today, including
helpful links related to SourceForge
* updated the milestones for the four ticket categories such that the
milestone list gets more
manageable; did not change the ooDialog-related milestones, though we
probably should, what
do you think?
---
... cut ...
In order to re-iterate the release process to check out the updated scripts and steps I would
like to add the little oleinfo-utiltity and dbus-support with tests (both in my sandbox, need to
be updated w.r.t. license etc.) and the multithreaded trace feature in the next weeks to trunk
and then suggest to build another release cycle 5.1.0 which hopefully goes much easier than this
one where we had to learn all that is necessary for a proper release. A pre-requisite would be
to have the Jenkins build scripts updated and being able to create a revision-free release
version of the binaries.
Agreed, this will be a good test. I suggest a dummy test before that on 5.0.1 or similar that we
can delete afterwards. Maybe end of January?
-1
While testing the release process is a needed step, we continue to ignore the elephant in the room
- the bugs and feature requests that were included in 5.0.0 that were NOT Pending, only Accepted.
As I reported earlier there are 36 changes which have TODOs associated with them. I suggest we
attack them and when they are no longer Accepted then we can test the release process. If we do
NOT focus on cleaning these up now, they will be around forever and never get addressed. A 5.0.1
release would be appropriate especially if we can "fix" bug 1857 assuming it is valid.
+1
However, there may be open items that only the authors know how to efficiently test and document. So
we can - and should! - do a best effort, but if it turns out that some items cannot be fulfilled by
us, then that is what the state would be.
This may be also an opportunity to request for help from the community to help add the missing
documentation and tests which mandates good and easy documentation for both. Do you think that
<https://sourceforge.net/projects/oorexx/files/oorexx-docs/5.0.0/ootest.pdf/download> is o.k. for
getting new tests?
Also, to which file can we point people to if we want them to successfully create missing
documentation items?
---rony
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
