Hi Antonio,
IMO no, because usrrdd is not a standalone RDD,
but rather the infrastructure (API) for standalone
RDDs. IOW if you link in usrrdd to an app, you
won't get a ready-to-use RDD.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.06.30., at 7:41, Antonio Linares wrote:
If all Harbour RDDs are named now rdd... (r
If all Harbour RDDs are named now rdd... (rddntx.lib, rddcdx.lib,
rddfpt.lib, rddado.lib), shouldn't we use rddusr.lib instead of
current hbusrrdd.lib name ?
Thanks,
___
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/ma
R: Re: [Harbour] Group opinion on RC2 from RC1 or main
branch?
No. Only after release 1.0.
Notice however, that this could technically be
implemented completely outside the core, say,
for example in GTWVG. Later on we can move some
logic to core, when we see and agree on what we
really need an
Very thank for all info
Confirmed the rc2 days?
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Szakáts Viktor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Inviato: sabato 28 giugno 2008 23.19
A: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Oggetto: Re: R: Re: [Harbour] Group opinion on RC2 from RC1 or main branch?
No. Only after r
Belgrano wrote:
What about pritpal modification for multiple windows gt?
Can be part of rc2
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Szakáts Viktor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Inviato: mercoledì 25 giugno 2008 7.51
A: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Oggetto: Re: [Harbour] Group opinion on RC2 from RC1 o
What about pritpal modification for multiple windows gt?
Can be part of rc2
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Szakáts Viktor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Inviato: mercoledì 25 giugno 2008 7.51
A: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Oggetto: Re: [Harbour] Group opinion on RC2 from RC1 or main
Hi Adam,
This problem is caused by enabling all contribs
by default, the one which fails was probably never
tested in the last n years, plus it needs GTK lib.
Could you please just delete the line " hbgf \"
from contrib/Makefile and have another try?
If there are other build problems I can lo
Dnia środa, 25 czerwca 2008, Szakáts Viktor napisał:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Yes ASAP, but IMO we should wait for Przemek to
> review latest changes and do tests on Linux.
>
> Brgds,
> Viktor
Yes, please wait for Przemek, because SVN 8800 does not compile and I cannot
make RPMs for openSUSE (the same which
Hi Phil,
Yes ASAP, but IMO we should wait for Przemek to
review latest changes and do tests on Linux.
So I think next Monday / early next week could
be the RC2-day.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.06.25., at 1:18, Phil Barnett wrote:
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 12:10:19 pm Szakáts Viktor wrote:
Sorry Phi
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 12:10:19 pm Szakáts Viktor wrote:
> Sorry Phil, I'm not sure I understand you, you
> said 'No' first, but here you seem to agree with
> my same, but more detailed proposal (also agreed
> on by those commenting).
>
> Can we move forward into this direction?
Yes, that's fine.
Sorry Phil, I'm not sure I understand you, you
said 'No' first, but here you seem to agree with
my same, but more detailed proposal (also agreed
on by those commenting).
Can we move forward into this direction?
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2008.06.24., at 14:16, Phil Barnett wrote:
On Tuesday 24 June 200
Szakáts Viktor wrote:
What to do?
If we agree on 1). We have to delete thunk/harbour-RC1, make a real
tag in tags/harbour-1.0.0RC1 from thunk/harbour revision 8597, add a
new tag in tags/harbour-1.0.0RC2 from thunk/harbour HEAD revision
after we agree we are releasing RC2.
Fully agreed.
One
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 04:29:09 am Szakáts Viktor wrote:
> > Do you agree with such a branch layout and versioning?:
> >
> > + harbour - commit all new developments
> >
> > |-+ harbour-1.0- commit 1.0 fixes only ("1.0dev")
> > | +-- harbour-1.0.0RCn - read-only for RC release
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 04:11:47 am Szakáts Viktor wrote:
> Do you agree with such a branch layout and versioning?:
No.
>
> + harbour - commit all new developments
>
> |-+ harbour-1.0 - commit 1.0 fixes only ("1.0dev")
> | +-- harbour-1.0.0RCn - read-only for RC release
> | +-
Hi Mindaugas,
We can:
1) continue development in thunk/harbour until final 1.0 will be
released and tag RCn to tags/harbour-1.0.0RCn. Then branch to
branches/harbour-1.0 for future 1.0.n releases and continue all new
features development in thunk.
My vote for this, this is what I was t
Szakáts Viktor wrote:
It would be also good to hear other thoughts on this,
and get to an agreement whether to do "branching"
(parallel development) or "tagging" (linear).
Hi,
actually, I do not understand at all what are we doing with
tagging/branching. I've tried to discuss this question
>
> main branch:
> /trunk/harbour (what we have)
>
> bugfix branches:
> /branches/harbour-1.0
> /branches/harbour-1.1
> /branches/harbour-2.0
>
> read-only "tags":
> /tags/harbour-1.0.0RCn
> /tags/harbour-1.1.0bn
> /tags/harbour-1.1.0RCn
> /tags/harbour-2.0.0bn
> /tags/harbour-2.0.0RCn
> (we al
Do you agree with such a branch layout and versioning?:
+ harbour - commit all new developments
|-+ harbour-1.0- commit 1.0 fixes only ("1.0dev")
| +-- harbour-1.0.0RCn - read-only for RC release
| +-- harbour-1.0.n- read-only for final release
|
|-+ harbour-1.1-
Hi Phil,
There may be multiple branches, but they need to be clearly defined
on what
can be done to them.
Likely, something like your diagram, though.
Yes, see my mail. In the ASCII diagram in it, there
is basically two development paths at the same time.
One in the main branch, and one
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 03:05:44 am Szakáts Viktor wrote:
> (when will 1.0.0 be considered closes, how will we
> release 1.0.1, how to copy/mark stuff on SVN...,
> shall we rename 1.0.0RC1 to 1.0?)
There may be multiple branches, but they need to be clearly defined on what
can be done to them.
L
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 02:11:30 am Szakáts Viktor wrote:
Same would have happened if we continue to work on RC1,
since in that case, we'd have to retrofit everything to
the main branch. Since it's parallel development.
This just makes double work for everyone.
Right now, we should be concentr
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 02:11:30 am Szakáts Viktor wrote:
> Same would have happened if we continue to work on RC1,
> since in that case, we'd have to retrofit everything to
> the main branch. Since it's parallel development.
This just makes double work for everyone.
Right now, we should be conce
It would be also good to hear other thoughts on this,
and get to an agreement whether to do "branching"
(parallel development) or "tagging" (linear). First
needs syncing, allows more dynamic development,
the seconds will slow development, but it requires
less (human) resources.
One more - import
Hi Phil,
Well, in the SVN world, there is no distinction between a tag and a
branch.
Technically yes (or to be even more precise, in SVN
there are not tags, just branches). We have a choice
to decide how we use branches tough. We can use them
as tags, and we can use them as "real" branches.
On Monday 23 June 2008 04:31:12 am Szakáts Viktor wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Are there any opinions on whether to use
> RC1 or the main branch as the source for RC2?
>
> I'd more and more vote to the main branch
> as the source, as there has been too many
> changes and fixes to be easy to merge.
Well, i
Use the main branch as source
If is good for you is good for me/we
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Szakáts Viktor
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:31 AM
To: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Subject: [Harbour] Group opinion on RC2 from
Hi all,
Are there any opinions on whether to use
RC1 or the main branch as the source for RC2?
I'd more and more vote to the main branch
as the source, as there has been too many
changes and fixes to be easy to merge.
Brgds,
Viktor
___
Harbour mailin
27 matches
Mail list logo
