Subject: Re: What to do for next release?

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:29:19 +0200

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 12:23:48AM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2001 02:28:52 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > 
> > I have been thinking about the plans for the next release and
> > about the long way we had to go for 2.4.  Dan is absolutely right
> > when he wants to find a way to establish a shorter release cycle.
> > 2.4 took to much time and I doubt I have the endurace for such an
> > herculean effort again.  There are a *lot* of things that were
> > postponed until after 2.4 that could be done now.  All the small
> > enhancement requests and bug fixes alone may justify another
> > release.
> > 
> > I believe 2.4 got out of hand because we tried to do everything at
> > once at first and then there were too many dependencies in the
> > code to be resolved so that we could not release although we
> > wanted to.  It may be better to plan for a 2.6 release that comes
> > up with many small enhancements, bug fixes and maybe even some of
> > the bigger but less disruptive features.  A new stable release
> > within half of a year semms to be a good plan to me.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> If we already go for 2.6 in some months, maybe grab cvs before Xinerama
> commits and release 2.4.1 based on it? The current one may become 2.5.0.
> This is somewhat similar to what I and Olivier suggested previously.

I think I don't understand what you are saying.  What do you mean
with "maybe grab cvs before Xinerama commits and release 2.4.1 based
on it"?

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

 --
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:15:44 +0000

> with "maybe grab cvs before Xinerama commits and release 2.4.1 based

What I mean is this. If we go for 2.6 in some months, maybe we leave 2.4.x
branch for fatal bugs only, move to 2.5.x betas and release 2.6.0 with
Xinerama, EWMH support (both need a deep testing) and probably other not
very big features just like you suggest.

If you ask how to do this technically, this is another question, first
we should agree whether we (you) want Xinerama in 2.4.1 or 2.6.0.

Regards,
Mikhael.