Test results for GNUstep as of Wed Oct 4 06:34:15 EDT 2006
If a particular system failed compilation, the logs for that system will
be placed at ftp://ftp.gnustep.org/pub/testfarm
If you would like to be a part of this automated testfarm, see
On 4 Oct 2006, at 11:51, Helge Hess wrote:
Hi,
could we please change the numbering scheme for GNUstep releases?
In my understanding:
Currently when Adam does a release he bumps the soname version (eg
from 1.12.0 to 1.13.0) in trunk and then tags the release. That
means after the
On Oct 4, 2006, at 13:30, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
Still less than ideal because we have no stable version but an
improvement over the current situation which makes it hard to
distinguish dev snapshots from final releases.
I don't think we have a policy of making unstable releases ...
On 4 Oct 2006, at 17:23, Helge Hess wrote:
On Oct 4, 2006, at 13:30, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
Still less than ideal because we have no stable version but an
improvement over the current situation which makes it hard to
distinguish dev snapshots from final releases.
I don't think we
On Oct 4, 2006, at 18:33, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
Since, you're the one making this assertion, I believe it's up to
you to prove that we have broken it in every release.
Thats trivial, just check the changelog:
http://www.gnustep.org/resources/documentation/Developer/Base/
On Oct 4, 2006, at 18:42, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
Note: by 'unstable' I don't mean that the code itself is buggy but
that the ABI is unstable.
Fair enough ... that's your definition ... but it's rather an
unusual one.
Really? I think thats the term usually used by OpenSource
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:28:49 +0200, Helge Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Oct 4, 2006, at 18:42, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
Note: by 'unstable' I don't mean that the code itself is buggy but
that the ABI is unstable.
Fair enough ... that's your definition ... but it's rather an unusual
On 4 Oct 2006, at 21:45, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:28:49 +0200, Helge Hess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Oct 4, 2006, at 18:42, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
Note: by 'unstable' I don't mean that the code itself is buggy but
that the ABI is unstable.
Fair enough ... that's
Richard Frith-Macdonald said:
There is a tension between those who ask for more frequent releases
(because they want new features) and those who ask for less frequent
releases because they have some issue with keeping multiple releases
on disk
I would prefer to have more frequent releases,
Richard,
you outline the scenario as an either/or (more frequent vs less
frequent) while IMHO its quite the contrary. The current situation
suits neither of the camps, for most its too slow, for some its (by
far) too fast. I don't think there is anyone who wants an almost
stable version.
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 01:42:15 +0200, Helge Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Oct 5, 2006, at 01:27, Jeremy Bettis wrote:
I thought that to provide a stable ABI, you just can't do these
things:
...
But these things should not cause instabilitity:
Adding a class
Adding a method
Thats wrong.
11 matches
Mail list logo