GNUstep Testfarm Results

2006-10-04 Thread Adam Fedor
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

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Richard Frith-Macdonald
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

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Helge Hess
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 ...

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Richard Frith-Macdonald
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

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Helge Hess
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/

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Helge Hess
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

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Hubert Chan
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

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Richard Frith-Macdonald
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

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Hubert Chan
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,

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Helge Hess
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.

Re: gnustep release numbers

2006-10-04 Thread Hubert Chan
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.