Next GNUstep release

I am still planing a GNUstep release for the end of October. I think, having a joined base/gui/back release would be great. Having a make release as well would only be useful if we change the licence in make to GPL 3. In gui and back the change of the licence notice in the files is still to be done

Next GNUstep release?

Before FOSDEM we were planing a coordinated release of the GNUstep core components. In the meantime a lot has happened. Base was completely rewritten, or so it seems from the outside and gui had to play catch up. Then I toyed around with the NIB loading and broke a few things. Now things are rather

Next GNUstep release

GNUstep base is making excellent progress in the moment, still I would suggest that we keep to our original plan of making a new release soon. For this we would need a few days of code freeze to allow for testing of a stable code base. What about having another week of happy hacking and then a week

Next GNUstep release?

For over a month I have been suggesting a new release of all GNUstep code components (perhaps including Gorm as well), but got no reply at all. Many of us have been pretty busy fixing the bugs Julian reported and there is still plenty to do in this area. Anyway I would like to start a discussio

Next GNUstep release

Dear GNUsteppers, I would like to schedule a shared new release for the core GNUstep packages (make, base, gui, back) around the end of March. We have a lot of excellent new features and it would be great to bring those out to more distributions and users. We are a bit later than in previous ye

Re: Next GNUstep release

On Oct 11, 2007, at 4:18 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote: I am still planing a GNUstep release for the end of October. I think, having a joined base/gui/back release would be great. Having a make release as well would only be useful if we change the licence in make to GPL 3. Sounds great to me. Do

Re: Next GNUstep release

I just had a look at some of the files in base and there the licence is given as GNU Lesser General Public License, whereas gui still uses the term GNU Library General Public License. Shouldn't this be changed as well? Looks like I have to do more than just replace a number :-( Fred Kiefer wrote:

Re: Next GNUstep release

Yes, RMS prefers the 'Lesser' term, so I suppose it should be changed. On Oct 21, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote: I just had a look at some of the files in base and there the licence is given as GNU Lesser General Public License, whereas gui still uses the term GNU Library General Public

Re: Next GNUstep release

On 21 Oct 2007, at 21:18, Fred Kiefer wrote: I just had a look at some of the files in base and there the licence is given as GNU Lesser General Public License, whereas gui still uses the term GNU Library General Public License. Shouldn't this be changed as well? Looks like I have to do more

Re: Next GNUstep release

Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote: > > On 21 Oct 2007, at 21:18, Fred Kiefer wrote: > >> I just had a look at some of the files in base and there the licence is >> given as GNU Lesser General Public License, whereas gui still uses the >> term GNU Library General Public License. Shouldn't this be chan

Re: Next GNUstep release

> what should happen to make? As far as I remember there was only one tiny > issue > fixed in make. > The only reason for a release would be the license switch. A license switch is enough to deserve a new release ... even if just a subminor one. Thanks _

Re: Next GNUstep release

On Oct 29, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote: gui and back are now ready for the next release. The license version has now been changed for all files with FSF copyright assignment, I did not touch the other files. I also added some release information for the upcoming release. Who is go

Re: Next GNUstep release

ber 30, 2007 10:25:13 AM Subject: Re: Next GNUstep release On Oct 29, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote: > > gui and back are now ready for the next release. The license > version has > now been changed for all files with FSF copyright assignment, I did > not > touch t

Re: Next GNUstep release

: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:25:13 AM > Subject: Re: Next GNUstep release > > > On Oct 29, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote: > >> gui and back are now ready for the next release. The license >> version has >> now been changed for all files with FSF copyr

Re: Next GNUstep release

ROTECTED]> To: Gregory John Casamento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Adam Fedor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Developer GNUstep Sent: Monday, November 5, 2007 12:03:42 PM Subject: Re: Next GNUstep release As far as I can tell 21478 is resolved now and 21479 is only a wish. >From my side there is

Re: Next GNUstep release

To: Gregory John Casamento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Developer GNUstep Sent: Monday, November 5, 2007 2:24:37 PM Subject: Re: Next GNUstep release I think it's fine, given that, if anyone really did have a problem with it, we could easily rewrite them. On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Gregory J

Re: Next GNUstep release

to GPLv3 now. Later, GJC -- Gregory Casamento -- OLC, Inc # GNUstep Chief Maintainer - Original Message From: Adam Fedor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Gregory John Casamento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Developer GNUstep Sent: Monday, November 5, 2007 2:24:37 PM Subject: Re: Nex

Re: Next GNUstep release

GNUstep [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2007 12:03:42 PM Subject: Re: Next GNUstep release As far as I can tell 21478 is resolved now and 21479 is only a wish. From my side there isn't any other outstanding issue blocking a release. I will stop my deve

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 26 Mar 2010, at 19:55, Fred Kiefer wrote: > moving on to non fragile ivars will happen later I currently count 6 instances of @defs in -gui, which is all that is preventing it from compiling with the non-fragile ABI. David -- Sent from my brain __

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi, yes I find it "due", we spoke about that before Fosdem indeed! This time we should really stabilize ad decide that for a period of a fortnight (or longer if deemed needed) where only bugfixes are commited! Not changes to the runtime or other far-reaching things. Also, fixes may produce bu

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Fred Kiefer wrote: Before FOSDEM we were planing a coordinated release of the GNUstep core components. In the meantime a lot has happened. Base was completely rewritten, or so it seems from the outside and gui had to play catch up. Then I toyed around with the NIB loading and broke a few th

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 26 Mar 2010, at 19:55, Fred Kiefer wrote: > What still needs to be done in gui is finishing the switch to #import, > moving on to non fragile ivars will happen later. I first want to see > the results base gets with its approach to that topic. I made some small changes in -gui last night that

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi Fred, Le 26 mars 2010 à 20:55, Fred Kiefer a écrit : Before FOSDEM we were planing a coordinated release of the GNUstep core components. In the meantime a lot has happened. Base was completely rewritten, or so it seems from the outside and gui had to play catch up. Then I toyed around w

Re: Next GNUstep release?

I agree we should release soon. There are a few bugs I would like to correct on the Windows side of things before we release. Also, I want to make sure the nib/gorm changes have completely stabilized prior to the release. Additionally, for the Windows packages the default theme should be the Win

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 27 Mar 2010, at 21:57, Gregory Casamento wrote: > I agree we should release soon. There are a few bugs I would like to > correct on the Windows side of things before we release. Also, I want > to make sure the nib/gorm changes have completely stabilized prior to > the release. Possibly we sh

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi, Additionally, for the Windows packages the default theme should be the WinUXTheme and not the NeXT theme on that system. Completely agree. I heartily disagree, even if I am the one that started working on it after the hiatus of Christopher and Fred! I understand all the pressure

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Agreed. On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 6:02 PM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 27 Mar 2010, at 21:57, Gregory Casamento wrote: > >> I agree we should release soon.  There are a few bugs I would like to >> correct on the Windows side of things before we release.  Also, I want >> to make sure the nib/gorm cha

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On Mar 26, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote: > > Adam, could you once more take up the task of releasing GNUstep? We > should give it another week or two so that people can complain about > existing bugs that need to be fixed before the release. I'll help make a release whenever it's ready.__

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Riccardo, On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Riccardo Mottola wrote: > I heartily disagree, even if I am the one that started working on it after > the hiatus of Christopher and Fred! I believe it's fair to say that I've been improving and working on it quite a bit since you and Fred did the initi

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Just so we have a concrete idea of what's wrong, could you give me some examples of apps which have issues with the Windows theme? > which I want to release "well" doesn't. If the application doesn't come up > with a main window, the menus have troubles, or if it doesn't open an > untitled documen

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Top level objects in the nib are the responsibility of the controller. That is to say that if you load a nib from MyController then any and all top level objects in that nib should be released by MyController when it deallocates itself. On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Wolfgang Lux wrote: > Fred

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 27 Mar 2010, at 22:33, Riccardo Mottola wrote: > Hi, >>> Additionally, for the Windows packages the default theme should be the >>> WinUXTheme and not the NeXT theme on that system. >>> >> >> Completely agree. >> >> > I heartily disagree, even if I am the one that started working on

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Richard, On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote: > I haven't kept up with the state of development/readiness of the windows > theme, but I really don't agree with forcibly changing the default theme ... > I know it makes me really irate on the odd occasion when Apple cha

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Gregory Casamento wrote: Top level objects in the nib are the responsibility of the controller. That is to say that if you load a nib from MyController then any and all top level objects in that nib should be released by MyController when it deallocates itself. Indeed. What I tried to point o

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Adam Fedor wrote: > > On Mar 26, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote: > > Adam, could you once more take up the task of releasing GNUstep? We > should give it another week or two so that people can complain about > existing bugs that need to be fixed before the rel

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Actually, all of these work for me. If you're using the "Windows Classic Theme" these things will not show since you're not using UXTHEME.DLL since the "Classic" theme is *actually* the built in theme and the .DLL is ONLY used when you use something other than the built-in theme (confused yet). I

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hey guys... Matt and I just talked via IM and he reminded me of a really important point. The functionality using proxies works fine on 32bit machines, but is broken on 64 bit machines due to the fact that this bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40700 has not seen release yet on m

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Gregory Casamento wrote: > Hey guys...  Matt and I just talked via IM and he reminded me of a > really important point. > > The functionality using proxies works fine on 32bit machines, but is > broken on 64 bit machines due to the fact that this bug: > > http://g

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 29 Mar 2010, at 07:37, Gregory Casamento wrote: > Hey guys... Matt and I just talked via IM and he reminded me of a > really important point. > > The functionality using proxies works fine on 32bit machines, but is > broken on 64 bit machines due to the fact that this bug: > > http://gcc.gn

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 26 Mar 2010, at 20:55, Fred Kiefer wrote: Before FOSDEM we were planing a coordinated release of the GNUstep core components. In the meantime a lot has happened. Base was completely rewritten, Is gnustep-base really ready for a release so shortly after a large rewrite ? I assume we'r

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 29 Mar 2010, at 13:44, Nicola Pero wrote: > On 26 Mar 2010, at 20:55, Fred Kiefer wrote: > >> Before FOSDEM we were planing a coordinated release of the GNUstep core >> components. In the meantime a lot has happened. Base was completely >> rewritten, > > Is gnustep-base really ready for a rel

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Before FOSDEM we were planing a coordinated release of the GNUstep core components. In the meantime a lot has happened. Base was completely rewritten, Is gnustep-base really ready for a release so shortly after a large rewrite ? I assume we're talking of an unstable release ? ;-) Most

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Wolfgang... The patch looks good. Please go ahead and apply it and make the change in GSNibLoading.m as well, if you wish. Thanks, GC On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Wolfgang Lux wrote: > Gregory Casamento wrote: > >> Top level objects in the nib are the responsibility of the controller. >>

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Mhm, I already did all of that yesterday... But there is more to do. We now need to change all the places where we load NIB (or Gorm or XIB) files to free the top level objects. The code is a lot cleaner now, but as far as memory leaks are concerned we are almost back to square one. We now leak al

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi I haven't kept up with the state of development/readiness of the windows theme, but I really don't agree with forcibly changing the default theme ... I know it makes me really irate on the odd occasion when Apple change default behaviors on OSX, and I have to look for the way to revert to

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi Fred! Mhm, I already did all of that yesterday... But there is more to do. We now need to change all the places where we load NIB (or Gorm or XIB) files to free the top level objects. The code is a lot cleaner now, but as far as memory leaks are concerned we are almost back to square one.

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Am 29.03.2010 20:47, schrieb Fred Kiefer: > But there is more to do. We now need to change all the places where we > load NIB (or Gorm or XIB) files to free the top level objects. The code > is a lot cleaner now, but as far as memory leaks are concerned we are > almost back to square one. We now le

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Am 30.03.2010 08:45, schrieb Wolfgang Lux: >> Mhm, I already did all of that yesterday... >> >> But there is more to do. We now need to change all the places where we >> load NIB (or Gorm or XIB) files to free the top level objects. The code >> is a lot cleaner now, but as far as memory leaks are c

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Fred Kiefer wrote: Just imagine an NSDocument NIB file with plenty of top level objects that go unhandled. What should we do in this case? Try to be clever in our own NIB loading code? E.g. provide an array for the top level objects and free them later on? Most likely this isn't what Cocoa is

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Riccardo, On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Riccardo Mottola wrote: [ SNIP ] > Although I generally agree with leaving the default theme as is on Unix, > where we can theoretically strive for a complete environment, on Windows we > always will be hosted, thus I consider it correct to have a more w

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Gregory Casamento escribió: An issue arises when the app doesn't bring up a window by default. I'm concerned that, if we bring up a window/menu in the absence of a window that the framework is making assumptions about what the developer wants. I think the developer must decide whether to prov

Re: Next GNUstep release?

I think we should decide what to do with the planed GNUstep release. There hasn't been much progress over the last week. More bugs got reported than fixed over that time. We can either make a release now, with a lot of known issues, even some that weren't there a few weeks ago. Or delay the releas

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Fred, On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Fred Kiefer wrote: > I think we should decide what to do with the planed GNUstep release. > > There hasn't been much progress over the last week. More bugs got > reported than fixed over that time. We can either make a release now, > with a lot of known issu

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi, There hasn't been much progress over the last week. More bugs got reported than fixed over that time. We can either make a release now, with a lot of known issues, even some that weren't there a few weeks ago. Or delay the release indefinitely. Not fixed doesn't mean that it is not import

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Am 30.04.2010 um 22:39 schrieb Gregory Casamento: Fred, On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Fred Kiefer wrote: I think we should decide what to do with the planed GNUstep release. There hasn't been much progress over the last week. More bugs got reported than fixed over that time. We can eit

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Yes. On Friday, April 30, 2010, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote: > > Am 30.04.2010 um 22:39 schrieb Gregory Casamento: > > > Fred, > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Fred Kiefer wrote: > > I think we should decide what to do with the planed GNUstep release. > > There hasn't been much progress ov

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Riccardo Mottola wrote: On my laptop today I cannot start *any* application even after a full, clean build of core. On my letux Grr throws exceptions. On both machines things worked enough to be of daily use about 1-2 months ago... If these exceptions were Uncaught exception NSInvalidAr

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Fred, I've been testing for a while with vairous nibs in Gorm since you made the changes to nib loading and haven't found any ill effects. Are you aware of any issues I may have overlooked? GC On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Gregory Casamento wrote: > Fred, > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:51 A

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi, If these exceptions were Uncaught exception NSInvalidArgumentException, reason: NSObject(class) does not recognize type the issue is fixed now (the latest base changes had inadvertently made GSObjCAllSubclassesOfClass return all superclasses of the class). The problem on Linux/x86 is now

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi Gregory, I have entered the first (and most annoying) bug of Gorm on Windows XP into the bugtracker: https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?29762 that bug is not only somewhat show stopping but also somewhat difficult to reproduce as it doesn't appear all the time. I can't tell what circumsta

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Thank you for the bug report. For me this isn't a show stopper for the next GNUstep release. It only affects Windows and mostly the WinUX theme. It may be a show stopper for that theme, but we already decided not to make it the default theme on Windows. >From my side the only know op

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On May 4, 2010, at 2:44 AM, Fred Kiefer wrote: > Thank you for the bug report. For me this isn't a show stopper for the next > GNUstep release. It only affects Windows and mostly the WinUX theme. It may > be a show stopper for that theme, but we already decided not to make it

Re: Next GNUstep release?

27;t a show stopper for the next > GNUstep release. It only affects Windows and mostly the WinUX theme. It may > be a show stopper for that theme, but we already decided not to make it the > default theme on Windows. > > From my side the only know open issue is still the Gorm se

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Riccardo, On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Riccardo Mottola wrote: > Hi, > > Fred Kiefer wrote: >> >> Thank you for the bug report. For me this isn't a show stopper for the >> next GNUstep release. It only affects Windows and mostly the WinUX theme. It >> may

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi, Fred Kiefer wrote: Thank you for the bug report. For me this isn't a show stopper for the next GNUstep release. It only affects Windows and mostly the WinUX theme. It may be a show stopper for that theme, but we already decided not to make it the default theme on Windows. A

Re: Next GNUstep release?

I plan on making a release of make and base by tomorrow. Please let me know when I can make a release of gui/back as well. On May 4, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Gregory Casamento wrote: > Fred, > > I'm still trying to reproduce it, but even so I don't believe it's a > problem with GUI or anything that s

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Richard made a final change that allows us to continue doing a gui/back release. At least as far as I know, we have less known issues then for previous releases. Fred Am 08.05.2010 18:22, schrieb Adam Fedor: > I plan on making a release of make and base by tomorrow. Please let me know > when I

Re: Next GNUstep release?

OK, I'll make a gui/back release early tomorrow. On May 9, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Fred Kiefer wrote: > Richard made a final change that allows us to continue doing a gui/back > release. At least as far as I know, we have less known issues then for > previous releases. ___

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Great! Could everybody please stop committing to these two projects until then? I am planing to have another release of GNUstep gui this summer so don't worry, any changes that didn't make it into this release wont be delayed as long as they were this time. To start planing for that next release e

Re: Next GNUstep release

On Mar 7, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote: > GNUstep base is making excellent progress in the moment, still I would > suggest that we keep to our original plan of making a new release soon. > For this we would need a few days of code freeze to allow for testing of > a stable code base. What a

Re: Next GNUstep release

On 7 Mar 2011, at 21:09, Fred Kiefer wrote: > GNUstep base is making excellent progress in the moment, still I would > suggest that we keep to our original plan of making a new release soon. Yes ... though I'm not sure exactly when soon is. Certainly this month would be good. > For this we wo

Re: Next GNUstep release

Hi, sounds fine for me, however for gui I'd like some more hacking. I need to find a way to run a compilation and a testsuite on my more exotic systems which are currently inconveniently tucket away. It could require a week or so. I'd especially like a run on gcc 2.95, a run on sparc and ppc

Re: Next GNUstep release

This sounds fine to me. On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote: > > On 7 Mar 2011, at 21:09, Fred Kiefer wrote: > >> GNUstep base is making excellent progress in the moment, still I would >> suggest that we keep to our original plan of making a new release soon. > > Yes ...

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi, I think it is a good idea to release gui&back. Things are piling up and diverging from base, so they are indeed needed. I am feeling some itches lately though, but they can surely be solved. The new cairo surface usage is not prefect, but it is quite good, if some of the performance and

Re: Next GNUstep release?

As I remember it, we agreed on GCC 4.0 and later. On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, Riccardo Mottola wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is a good idea to release gui&back. Things are piling up and diverging from base, so they are indeed needed. I am feeling some itches lately though, but they can surely be

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 9 Nov 2011, at 05:32, Gregory Casamento wrote: > As I remember it, we agreed on GCC 4.0 and later. Yup, the rationale was that 2.9x -> 3.x was where most of the platforms were dropped. Excluding 3.x gives us a more modern compiler with better language support and doesn't lose us any platfor

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi, I don't remember about this and agreeing on that. We spoke about 2.95 because it had serious limitations and limited c99 compatibility which was fine to drop and I agreed on that because the inconvenience of maintaining it outweighed the benefits eventually. I'd be against dropping 3.x s

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 9 Nov 2011, at 13:15, Riccardo Mottola wrote: > 3.2 especially was essentially the "second best" portable option after 2.95. > Portability of gcc got quite worse after 3.4. Examples please. What platforms: - Are supported by GCC 3.2 - Are not supported by GCC 4.0 or Clang - Are supported by

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi Examples please. What platforms: - Are supported by GCC 3.2 - Are not supported by GCC 4.0 or Clang - Are supported by GNUstep? Don't twist the question. It is not a matter of which platform "could" be supported by a newer version of gcc. We are not Apple or some commercial company, oh se

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 9 Nov 2011, at 12:56, David Chisnall wrote: > On 9 Nov 2011, at 05:32, Gregory Casamento wrote: > >> As I remember it, we agreed on GCC 4.0 and later. > > Yup, the rationale was that 2.9x -> 3.x was where most of the platforms were > dropped. Excluding 3.x gives us a more modern compiler w

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 9 Nov 2011, at 18:13, Riccardo Mottola wrote: >> >> Examples please. What platforms: >> >> - Are supported by GCC 3.2 >> - Are not supported by GCC 4.0 or Clang >> - Are supported by GNUstep? > Don't twist the question I'm not twisting the question. Supporting older compilers increases the

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi Fred, I agree we should do a gui release as soon as possible - if I tested correctly, the latest gui release 0.20.0 doesn't work the the latest base, 1.23.0. I would like to get the changes you suggest in (font rewrite and filter services), but on the other hand, I think doing a release soon

Re: Next GNUstep release?

To scale this discussion down a bit. The only thing that currently stops you from using an older version of gcc. Is the GCC_VERSION variable in the Version file of base. I am not aware of any specific change that would deliberately break older compilers. It is just that we don't officially supp

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi, this sounds good and sensible. I don't have any blocking issues with the new backend, I will do further tests this weekend though. Only under certain operationswe see flickering and this may be the hint for the slowdowns. (try a full-screen slide-show in LaternaMagica.. sometimes it evide

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Hi, Fred Kiefer wrote: To scale this discussion down a bit. The only thing that currently stops you from using an older version of gcc. Is the GCC_VERSION variable in the Version file of base. I am not aware of any specific change that would deliberately break older compilers. It is just that we

Re: Next GNUstep release?

On 9 Nov 2011, at 19:53, Fred Kiefer wrote: > > So far there has been only Riccardo's reply whether there should be a release > at all. Those this mean we shouldn't do a shared release now? Then we could > thing about just a gui/back release, which shoudl make Riccardo happy. I like your idea

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Am Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:33:08 + schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald : > I'm not actually clear on what Riccardo wants here , so I won't try to > comment on other alternatives, but it seems to me we want to get things back > in sync properly ASAP. yes. -- mit freundlichen Gruessen/best regards

Re: Next GNUstep release?

Just a small comment. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 19:13, Riccardo Mottola wrote: > We are not Apple, nor Microsoft nor whatever. We value freedom, which has > many aspects. How tedious. It works both ways: bigger companies can sometimes afford supporting a somewhat wider variety of options. :) -- I

Re: Next GNUstep release

Fred, On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:08 AM Fred Kiefer wrote: > Dear GNUsteppers, > > I would like to schedule a shared new release for the core GNUstep > packages (make, base, gui, back) around the end of March. We have a lot of > excellent new features and it would be great to bring those out to mo

Re: Next GNUstep release

Hi Fed, On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:09 AM Fred Kiefer wrote: > Dear GNUsteppers, > > I would like to schedule a shared new release for the core GNUstep > packages (make, base, gui, back) around the end of March. We have a lot of > excellent new features and it would be great to bring those out to

Re: Next GNUstep release

Hi! Fred Kiefer wrote: I would like to schedule a shared new release for the core GNUstep packages (make, base, gui, back) around the end of March. We have a lot of excellent new features and it would be great to bring those out to more distributions and users. We are a bit later than in pre

Re: Next GNUstep release

Hi, > On Feb 11, 2020, at 15:14, Sergii Stoian wrote: > > Hi Fed, > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:09 AM Fred Kiefer > wrote: > Dear GNUsteppers, > > I would like to schedule a shared new release for the core GNUstep packages > (make, base, gui, back) around the end o

Re: Next GNUstep release

Hi, before a release, I would like these issues to find a solution. - understand why we don't work properly on my ThinkPad T23 neither with the Cairo nor with the xlib backend with similar issues - understand/fix/workaround the libobjc2 which impede me to test current GNUstep on any FreeBSD 11

Re: Next GNUstep release

Hi, > On Feb 27, 2020, at 23:09, Riccardo Mottola > wrote: > > Hi, > > before a release, I would like these issues to find a solution. > > - understand why we don't work properly on my ThinkPad T23 neither with the > Cairo nor with the xlib backend with similar issues Could you please be mo

Re: Next GNUstep release

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 8:09 AM Fred Kiefer wrote: > And most importantly, Ivan will you have time to cut all these releases? Of > course we could move that point around a week or two if that date fits better I've only now seen this. This is ok and please coordinate with me closer to the releas

Re: Next GNUstep release

Hi! Ivan Vučica wrote: - understand/fix/workaround the libobjc2 which impede me to test current GNUstep on any FreeBSD 11.x and 12.x I currently have on i386 and amd64 Honestly, I would have expected that libobjc2 FreeBSD should work out of the box given David is/was working on FreeBSD... Me

Re: Next GNUstep release

Hi Ivan, is it OK to go ahead with the release as planed? I just provide short descriptions of the changes in gui and back in the news-texi files. Everybody that contributed in the last year should have a short look to see whether I missed something or improve the description. @Richard could you d

Re: Next GNUstep release

Hi Fred, On 27.03.20 20:31, Fred Kiefer wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > is it OK to go ahead with the release as planed? > I just provide short descriptions of the changes in gui and back in the > news-texi files. Everybody that contributed in the last year should have > a short look to see whether I misse

Re: Next GNUstep release

On 28.03.20 09:59, Niels Grewe wrote: > Hi Fred, > > On 27.03.20 20:31, Fred Kiefer wrote: >> Hi Ivan, >> >> is it OK to go ahead with the release as planed? >> I just provide short descriptions of the changes in gui and back in the >> news-texi files. Everybody that contributed in the last year s

Re: Next GNUstep release

Just noting that I've seen this email and I'll try to tackle the release this weekend. I'll of course validate what I'm releasing, and update -base if it's not done by then. I'll cut make, base, gui, back. I'm aiming to do it Sunday. On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:01 PM Niels Grewe wrote: > > On 28.

  1   2   >