Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
On Jul 3, 2009, at 19:49, Andrew Sullivan wrote: 1. The recent boilerplate/process-change events have resulted in a situation where the most-recommended tool for preparing IETF documents does not work at all in its stable version. To me, 1.34pre3 appears to be exactly as stable as 1.33 (modulo the instability inevitably introduced by the 5378 train wreck). Would it help to simply call it 1.34 now? (Then it would be picked up by distributions and packaging services such as macports, and people could stop installing by hand.) Release early, release often. Gruesse, Carsten ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
On 2009-7-5, at 16:20, Carsten Bormann wrote: Would it help to simply call it 1.34 now? (Then it would be picked up by distributions and packaging services such as macports, and people could stop installing by hand.) +1 I maintain the fink package for xml2rfc, and the committers asked me to wait for the "stable" release instead of sending them ports for "pre" releases (the "pre" releases don't fit well with the regular fink naming scheme and hence require manual tweaking, which they want to avoid.) Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 03:20:20PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: > To me, 1.34pre3 appears to be exactly as stable as 1.33 (modulo the > instability inevitably introduced by the 5378 train wreck). I have actually run into a somewhat cryptic error message (which I was unable to reproduce on earlier releases, but which I was also unable to reproduce consistently anyway), and I've seen some other reports of issues with 1.34pre3, so it appears there are some dust bunnies in the corners. If I knew anything at all about TCL, I'd probably try to do more work on it, but as it is I'm just grateful that those who work on xml2rfc do as good work as they do. (That isn't to say that there isn't an issue here with process, but as I already that is not a criticism of the xml2fc developers.) A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
On Jul 6, 2009, at 15:28, Andrew Sullivan wrote: I have actually run into a somewhat cryptic error message (which I was unable to reproduce on earlier releases, but which I was also unable to reproduce consistently anyway), and I've seen some other reports of issues with 1.34pre3, so it appears there are some dust bunnies in the corners. While I'm certain there are some dust bunnies, I'm nearly certain they are the same as with 1.33. There simply aren't that many changes. 1.34pre3 is certainly working for people doing drafts these days. 1.33, however, is utterly useless! Ship it. (Maybe after removing the one remnant test output in the nroff rendering code on line 12106.) Gruesse, Carsten ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
+1!! Carsten Bormann wrote: > 1.34pre3 is certainly working for people doing drafts these days. > 1.33, however, is utterly useless! > > Ship it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
On 5 jul 2009, at 15:20, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Jul 3, 2009, at 19:49, Andrew Sullivan wrote: 1. The recent boilerplate/process-change events have resulted in a situation where the most-recommended tool for preparing IETF documents does not work at all in its stable version. To me, 1.34pre3 appears to be exactly as stable as 1.33 (modulo the instability inevitably introduced by the 5378 train wreck). Would it help to simply call it 1.34 now? I guess the last round of whining about xml2rfc wasn't sufficient in scope and volume, I'm sure the upcoming one will best it on both counts. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [xml2rfc] Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
Marshall Rose wrote: julian, bill - i thought we were waiting on another revision for boilerplate changes? is that imminent? Some changes are upcoming. One was made by the RFC Editor on July, 1st (moving abstract in front of the boiler plate). There was also disagreement on where to move the new 5378 escape clause; I'd need to review this mailing list's archives for details. BR, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [xml2rfc] Releasing xml2rfc 1.34pre3?
"Release early, release often." Can't we simply do a 1.35 whenever the upcoming changes have been finalized? Lars On 2009-7-7, at 0:30, Julian Reschke wrote: Marshall Rose wrote: julian, bill - i thought we were waiting on another revision for boilerplate changes? is that imminent? Some changes are upcoming. One was made by the RFC Editor on July, 1st (moving abstract in front of the boiler plate). There was also disagreement on where to move the new 5378 escape clause; I'd need to review this mailing list's archives for details. BR, Julian smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
