On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd suggest OpenSceneGraph-2.4. As it is located under /branches, that
> should be clear enough.
OK, OpenSceneGraph-2.4 it is then.
> I assume these are shell scripts?
The ones I have are.
> Should we decide in advance that
Robert Osfield wrote:
I can easily make the branch once we decide upon an name, then we'll
need Jose Luis Hidalgo to add logins and write permissions for
yourself, Eric and any others who wish to work on maintaining 2.4.x.
Let's not use just a first name for the user accounts. We're clashing
Robert Osfield wrote:
Hi Paul,
It sounds like we are now on roughly the same wavelength w.r.t how to progress.
Right, but that is for maintenance of the next stable branch. How about the
current one (2.4)?
I'd suggest going with a branch from 2.4.0 or 2.5.1 (if you want to be
lazy)
Hi Paul,
It sounds like we are now on roughly the same wavelength w.r.t how to progress.
> Right, but that is for maintenance of the next stable branch. How about the
> current one (2.4)?
I'd suggest going with a branch from 2.4.0 or 2.5.1 (if you want to be
lazy) i,e
svn copy
http://www.open
Robert Osfield wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why not branch to _create_ the 2.6.x series, instead of branching _after_
2.6.0? The former is far more commonplace.
The system since the 1.9.x dev series has been that we tag when re
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the offer of help.
Having a hard a fast rule w.r.t binary compatibility will preclude
some important bug fixes, this has happened with previous releases,
and includes fixes to 2.4.0. So I'd suggest that one uses discretion
about what parts get merged and if it means breaking
I'm willing to help port bug fixes back to stable branches. I have an
ulterior motive though; I made a particular change in the Inventor
plugin that is now in SVN that I would like to see in a stable release.
I think that only bug fixes should be ported back; API changes would
have to wait for
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not branch to _create_ the 2.6.x series, instead of branching _after_
> 2.6.0? The former is far more commonplace.
The system since the 1.9.x dev series has been that we tag when ready
to officially make a releas
Hi Robert,
Robert Osfield wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would there be a single stable branch and one development one? I.e. when 2.6
would come out it would supersede 2.4?
Each stable series would be independent. A new stable release su
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would there be a single stable branch and one development one? I.e. when 2.6
> would come out it would supersede 2.4?
Each stable series would be independent. A new stable release such as
2.6.0 would become the main stable br
Robert Osfield wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doing a diff between the 2.4 and current SVN headers it seems the API
changes that break things are minimal:
...
So porting from 2.4 to 2.6 (when it comes out) should be fairly easy, unless
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doing a diff between the 2.4 and current SVN headers it seems the API
> changes that break things are minimal:
>...
> So porting from 2.4 to 2.6 (when it comes out) should be fairly easy, unless
> you do deep stuff wi
Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote:
Hi Robert,
Another aspect to the OpenSceneGraph development cycle is that while
quite a few users do track SVN and developer releases not everyone
does - many users wait till stable releases come out.
Yes, and that coupled with the fact that 2.0 and 2.2 have not h
Hi J-S,
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I think in addition to all you said in the previous message (and with
> which I agree), making a few point releases between stable releases would
> help people keep up to date more easily.
This easy part i
Hi Robert,
Another aspect to the OpenSceneGraph development cycle is that while
quite a few users do track SVN and developer releases not everyone
does - many users wait till stable releases come out.
Yes, and that coupled with the fact that 2.0 and 2.2 have not had any
point releases (x.y.1,
Hi Paul,
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Paul Martz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would this release be called "2.4.1" rather than "2.6"? In other words,
> back when 2.4 came out, there was no question that it would be called "2.4"
> as opposed to "2.2.1" -- what's different about this propose
L PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Robert Osfield
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 2:57 PM
> To: OpenSceneGraph Users
> Subject: [osg-users] OpenSceneGraph 2.4.1 stable release??
> If/when/when/who
>
> Hi All,
>
> There has been a number of build
Hi All,
There has been a number of build and bug fixes to the OSG since 2.4
that would be nice to fixed as part a 2.4.x stable family. While
desirable there are practical issues to overcome to make a stable
series possible, which is why I'd like to strike up this thread to see
what we as communit
18 matches
Mail list logo
