Re: 4.3.0 status update
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Alan Hourihane wrote: > This is what David Dawes wrote about the forthcoming 4.3.0 release. > > Harold, Alex, and others. Can you take the time to really test the > current CVS and get patches in now. Will we include the pseudo relocation patches? I've not received a comment to my last patch. I think the rootless (not multiwindow) mode and multimonitor are nice features for 4.3.0 too bye ago
Re: 4.3.0 status update
Once I make an official release of the multi-monitor patch I can submit both the multi-window and multi-monitor patches. There were also some cross-compiling build warnings that I had written in about, but no one had commented on. I will see if I can dig them up again. Basically, we need to get things in before Jan 17, right? After that it means that we will have two distinctly different versions in the branches, right? That has always been a pain in the past. Harold Alan Hourihane wrote: This is what David Dawes wrote about the forthcoming 4.3.0 release. Harold, Alex, and others. Can you take the time to really test the current CVS and get patches in now. Thanks. Alan. - Forwarded message from David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Here's a quick status update regarding the 4.3.0 release. With one or two exceptions, most of the submissions that came in before the feature freeze have been integrated. The remaining ones should be done over the next week, and the next snapshot tagged (4.2.99.4). Also, the bug fixes submitted in the last few days should be reviewed and integrated soon. There have been some unavoidable delays related to a combination of unresolved bugs, the Holidays, and day job commitments that some of us have, so it's looks like the release date will slip by 2-3 weeks. The current tentative schedule is: Last submission date for non-critical fixes1 February 2003 End of integration of non-critical fixes 5 February 2003 Last submission date for documentation(*) 10 February 2003 Last submission date for release notes14 February 2003 4.3.0 tagged for release 15-16 February 2003 4.3.0 available from ftp.xfree86.org 17 February 2003 4.2.99.4 snapshot tagged 17-19 January 2003 4.2.99.901 (RC1) tagged25-26 January 2003 other release candidates tagged as-needed Note the usual disclaimers: This is a tentative schedule only, and may change without notice. It's as accurate as I can make it, but don't plan your life around it! Most of the XFree86 release work is handled by volunteers on their own time, and most of us have day jobs that have to take priority over spare-time work like this.
Re: 4.3.0 status update
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 04:13:49 +0100, Alexander Gottwald wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Alan Hourihane wrote: > > > This is what David Dawes wrote about the forthcoming 4.3.0 release. > > > > Harold, Alex, and others. Can you take the time to really test the > > current CVS and get patches in now. > > Will we include the pseudo relocation patches? I've not received a comment > to my last patch. No. I think it's too early for that patch anyway. I was hoping the pseudo reloc stuff would just work without any intervention, but alas it doesn't so I wouldn't want to make such intrusive changes at this stage. Alan.
Re: 4.3.0 status update
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:24:48 -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > Once I make an official release of the multi-monitor patch I can submit > both the multi-window and multi-monitor patches. As long as they are completely isolated. I'll need to review them first. > There were also some cross-compiling build warnings that I had written > in about, but no one had commented on. I will see if I can dig them up > again. Please do. I don't currently have a cross compile environment, so patches rather than bug reports are even better. > Basically, we need to get things in before Jan 17, right? After that it > means that we will have two distinctly different versions in the > branches, right? That has always been a pain in the past. The XFree86 CVS will branch to become xf-4_3_0-branch and new work will continue on HEAD. Patches to 4.3.0 will be applied to the xf-4_3_0-branch. Strictly speaking - no new features are allowed at this point, only bug fixes. So the new multi-window/monitor stuff shouldn't be allowed. But I'll see what I can do when I see the patch. Alan.
Re: 4.3.0 status update
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > Once I make an official release of the multi-monitor patch I can submit > both the multi-window and multi-monitor patches. Is the multi-window feature ready for an official release? Esp. the WM functions? > There were also some cross-compiling build warnings that I had written > in about, but no one had commented on. I will see if I can dig them up > again. It seemd ok. I don't use UseInstalled, so I never saw these warnings. > Basically, we need to get things in before Jan 17, right? Feb 1 > After that it > means that we will have two distinctly different versions in the > branches, right? No. A new branch will be created for bugfixes for 4.3.0 and new features will only go to the main branch. > That has always been a pain in the past. Depends on how you use it. If we get a lot of patches for 4.3.0 and apply these and also get a lot of new features for the main branch, we'll get very different branches. But if we fix bugs only in the main branch, then we don't need the branch. bye ago -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: 4.3.0 status update
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Alan Hourihane wrote: > No. I think it's too early for that patch anyway. I was hoping the pseudo > reloc stuff would just work without any intervention, but alas it doesn't > so I wouldn't want to make such intrusive changes at this stage. It's ok to me as it required new binutils and new cygwin libs. bye ago -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gotti.org ICQ: 126018723
Re: 4.3.0 status update
Alexander Gottwald wrote: On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Harold L Hunt II wrote: Once I make an official release of the multi-monitor patch I can submit both the multi-window and multi-monitor patches. Is the multi-window feature ready for an official release? Esp. the WM functions? Nope. It is still experimental. But it doesn't seem to have any detrimental effect when you aren't using it, so why not include it? There were also some cross-compiling build warnings that I had written in about, but no one had commented on. I will see if I can dig them up again. It seemd ok. I don't use UseInstalled, so I never saw these warnings. Hmm... I was getting problems with symbols in the Makefiles being redefined. I didn't think it was related to UseInstalled, but that is a possibility. Basically, we need to get things in before Jan 17, right? Feb 1 Right, but I am being very pragmatic here. In the past it has been difficult to submit, and get Alan to commit, dual patches for both head and a branch. After about a month, I think Alan deletes the branch, so patches to it seem to go to lala land. So my point is pretty much: January 17 for fewer headaches. :) Harold After that it means that we will have two distinctly different versions in the branches, right? No. A new branch will be created for bugfixes for 4.3.0 and new features will only go to the main branch. That has always been a pain in the past. Depends on how you use it. If we get a lot of patches for 4.3.0 and apply these and also get a lot of new features for the main branch, we'll get very different branches. But if we fix bugs only in the main branch, then we don't need the branch. bye ago
Re: 4.3.0 status update
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:02:37 -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > Right, but I am being very pragmatic here. In the past it has been > difficult to submit, and get Alan to commit, dual patches for both head > and a branch. After about a month, I think Alan deletes the branch, so > patches to it seem to go to lala land. So my point is pretty much: > January 17 for fewer headaches. :) All patches you've submitted for head or branch should be there. If they're not then ping me with the patch number. If there's a delay in committing, then it's nothing to do with deleting branches etc. It's to do with my time. Alan.
Re: 4.3.0 status update
Alan, No recent patches were lost. I am talking about patches that I submitted after the 4.2.0 branch. After about two weeks you stopped committing them to both trees, even though I noted that they should be committed to both trees. I thought I remember you telling me at one point that you didn't have a local 4.2.0 tree anymore... I could be wrong, but I got the impression that I shouldn't waste more time with 4.2.0 patches, so that's what I did. Are you telling me instead that you will be able to apply bug fixes to a stable 4.3.0 tree for the life cycle of that version? That would be nice indeed. Harold Alan Hourihane wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:02:37 -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: Right, but I am being very pragmatic here. In the past it has been difficult to submit, and get Alan to commit, dual patches for both head and a branch. After about a month, I think Alan deletes the branch, so patches to it seem to go to lala land. So my point is pretty much: January 17 for fewer headaches. :) All patches you've submitted for head or branch should be there. If they're not then ping me with the patch number. If there's a delay in committing, then it's nothing to do with deleting branches etc. It's to do with my time. Alan.
Re: 4.3.0 status update
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:42:46 -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: > Alan, > > No recent patches were lost. I am talking about patches that I > submitted after the 4.2.0 branch. After about two weeks you stopped > committing them to both trees, even though I noted that they should be > committed to both trees. I thought I remember you telling me at one > point that you didn't have a local 4.2.0 tree anymore... I could be > wrong, but I got the impression that I shouldn't waste more time with > 4.2.0 patches, so that's what I did. Well, it doesn't take me two seconds to get another 4.2.0 tree, if you really want stuff committing there. I have to draw the line at fixes to the 4.2.0 branch as purely fixes for bugs though. So if there's still something missing, let me know. > Are you telling me instead that you will be able to apply bug fixes to a > stable 4.3.0 tree for the life cycle of that version? That would be > nice indeed. Yes. But again, purely bug fixes - no features. Alan.
