Just upload them as is. Rick
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:02 AM ooRexx <oor...@jonases.se> wrote: > Just one more question and I be gone: re #1895 > <https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/bugs/1895/> and the fact that 4 (vital) > files are missing on sourceforge in the files/oorexx/5.0.0 section > > ReadMe.txt > ReleaseNotes > INSTALL.txt > CHANGES.txt > > Since we cannot modify them for 5.0.0 should we (i) upload them as-is from > r12583 or (ii) just ignore them until the next release. > > my preferred option would be (i) since they still contain useful albeit > not always up-to-date information. > > I have started to update these files as far as I can but that will be for > 5.0.1 or 5.1.0 > > Hälsningar/Regards/Grüsse, > P.O. Jonsson > oor...@jonases.se > > > > On 10. May 2023, at 11:45, Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:33 AM ooRexx <oor...@jonases.se> wrote: > >> >> On 10. May 2023, at 11:16, Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 3:51 AM ooRexx <oor...@jonases.se> wrote: >> >>> I added the missing softlink so that Windows users can find rxsock.pdf, >>> Is this the right way to do it on sourceforge? >>> >>> The status “Closed” is only set when there is a release version, right? >>> >>> When shall the status “Pending” be used? >>> >> >> Pending should be used until the change is available in a shipped >> release. That allows us to determine what changes are actually in a >> release. Closed should never be used until a release containing the change >> has shipped. >> >> >>> >>> What is the difference between the milestones 5.0.0, 5.0.1 and 5.1.0? >>> >> >> That indicates which release the change is going to ship on. Since the >> 5.0.0 has already been released, that should never be used again. 5.0.1 >> would be a release that will contain only bug fixes to 5.0.0. The 5.1.0 >> release will contain new content, as well as bug fixes to 5.0.0 content. >> Bug fixes like this one should be applied to both the trunk and the 5.0.1 >> branch and the 5.0.1 milestone used. >> >> >>> >>> This fix solved the problem for 5.1.0Beta but the installer for 5.0.0 is >>> still missing it. Is it ok to go in and make a retrospective build for >>> 5.0.0 and correct it manually? >>> >> >> No, it is not ok. Once 5.0.0 has shipped, no changes to that tree are >> permitted. Fixes can only be released by spinning a 5.0.1 release. >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for the info, makes sense. But unfortunately most people will be >> using 5.0.0 rather than the rolling release so they will miss out on things >> like this. I guess we need to start thinking about a 5.0.1 then. >> > We don't ship a new bug-fix release every time there's a change. This > should wait until we have a significant number of them or there's a bug > that impacts a lot of users. This is nowhere near that level. > > > >> I will change the milestone for #1894 and #1875 to 5.0.1 then. >> >> Re #1854 it is still ok to add missing files, like the source files to >> 5.0.0 ? >> > > I think it's ok to upload the source file archive to sourceforge and label > it 5.0.0, but any changes (e.g. CmakeList changes) only get applied to the > appropriate branches. > > > >> >> /P.O. >> >> >>> Any information on how the bug tracker should be used is welcome. >>> >>> Hälsningar/Regards/Grüsse, >>> P.O. Jonsson >>> oor...@jonases.se >>> >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>> *From: *"Per Olov Jonsson" <perolovjons...@users.sourceforge.net> >>> *Subject: **[oorexx:bugs] #1897 Entry missing in Windows installer* >>> *Date: *10. May 2023 at 09:02:55 CEST >>> *To: *"[oorexx:bugs] " <1...@bugs.oorexx.p.re.sourceforge.net> >>> *Reply-To: *"[oorexx:bugs] " <1...@bugs.oorexx.p.re.sourceforge.net> >>> >>> - **status**: open --> accepted >>> - **assigned_to**: Per Olov Jonsson >>> - **Comment**: >>> >>> Fixed with r12676 >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> **[bugs:#1897] Entry missing in Windows installer** >>> >>> **Status:** accepted >>> **Group:** None >>> **Created:** Sun May 07, 2023 08:15 PM UTC by Per Olov Jonsson >>> **Last Updated:** Sun May 07, 2023 08:15 PM UTC >>> **Owner:** Per Olov Jonsson >>> >>> >>> For Windows there is no entry referring to rxSock.cls documentation in >>> the Documentation folder in the ooRexx startup menu item. RxSock.pdf exists >>> but the Windows user may not be aware of its existence since it is not in >>> the list of links in the Start Menu item for ooRexx. >>> >>> What is missing is a softlink with an appropriate name >>> >>> from >>> >>> C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Open Object >>> Rexx\Documentation >>> >>> to >>> >>> C:\Program Files\ooRexx\doc\rxsock.pdf >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in < >>> https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/bugs/1897/> >>> >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit < >>> https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oorexx-devel mailing list >>> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oorexx-devel mailing list >> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oorexx-devel mailing list >> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >> > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
