Subject: 2.1.7 should be released

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:25:48 +0100

I think 2.1.7 has proven stable enough to be released. If there
are no objections I think Jason should move it to the ftp
directory and post the announcement as soon as possible.

Bye

Dominik

-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 08 Jan 1999 10:51:11 -0600

>>>>> "DV" == Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

DV> I think 2.1.7 has proven stable enough to be released.

Objections, anyone?  Otherwise I'll push it out in an hour.

 - J<

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 12:07:24 -0500

> Objections, anyone?  Otherwise I'll push it out in an hour.

Sorry, I responded to Dominik personally, when I should have
responded to the list.

I'd like to see the next announced beta be a 2.2 candidate.

Given that the XPM fix is not in 2.1.7,  I don't see the point.

Shouldn't we fix everything that Dominik has identified as needed
for 2.2 and then release the beta?

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 08 Jan 1999 13:13:34 -0500

I have the XPM stuff done, now I'm working on the signal handling stuff.
Tom Tromey says he hopes to release a new automake this weekend; if so
we might want to upgrade to get rid of the install-sh bug.

Oh, XPM is done except for one thing: _no_one_ has been able to tell me
how to handle -R options nicely for the extra library dirs.  There
doesn't seem to be any comprehensive test in autoconf for this (and I've
looked in the generated configure shell script--how's _that_ for
dedication :).

I suppose I could test the X_LIBS variable and see if it uses -R, and
add it to the other libraries if so.

The only response I got from the autoconf folks was that this was very
hard, for a variety of reasons ranging from good to (IMO) questionable.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
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: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 23:07:06 +0100

> for 2.2 and then release the beta?

Yes, but I don't see a reason for another beta in between.
So much stuff has been done that at least I want some
chance to verify the fixes before we have everything in place.

Bye

Dominik

--
Dominik Vogt, [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 23:35:25 +0100

> for 2.2 and then release the beta?

Um, forget my last reply. It says the opposite of what I wanted to
say. My reasons for 2.1.7 are: a lot has been done and this warrants
to make this release another beta. If we keep putting in "just another
fix" before making a beta we won't ever have another beta. After this
I think we take our time to fix the remaining bugs and make 2.1.8 in
the hope it will be the last beta.

Bye

Dominik

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 08 Jan 1999 16:53:28 -0600

>>>>> "DV" == Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

DV> If we keep putting in "just another fix" before making a beta we won't
DV> ever have another beta.

I have to agree.  We're not talking ridiculous release intervals here;
2.1.5 was released nearly four weeks ago.

We aren't harmed by quick releases, as long as we aren't making every CVS
commit a new release.

 - J<

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 08:11:32 +0100

> We aren't harmed by quick releases, as long as we aren't making every CVS

I have to agree with Dan that we don't want to announce a lot of betas
to the world, but since we're still announcing them to our lists at the
moment I see no problem. So unless someone else takes Dan's position
or he comes up with really good arguments the decision has been
reached by outvoting Dan. I think this is better than paralysing
ourselves with discussions at this point.

Bye

Dominik

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 09 Jan 1999 15:56:12 -0600

>>>>> "DV" == Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

DV> So unless someone else takes Dan's position or he comes up with really
DV> good arguments the decision has been reached by outvoting Dan. I think
DV> this is better than paralysing ourselves with discussions at this
DV> point.

Well, it's been nearly 15 hours with no further discussion, so I'm pushing
out the release.

 - J<

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 17:14:37 -0500

> ourselves with discussions at this point.

OK, I won't sulk if I'm out-voted.  Just a couple more points:

I think you  fixed the problem with modifiers  not working with button
pushes after you  created the package.  I  think it would be a mistake
to release software with such a serious problem.

With all  the  recent changes,  if  we  did  want  to release  a beta,
shouldn't it include the large number of recent changes?

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:28:39 +0100

> to release software with such a serious problem.

In part I created the problem myself after 2.1.7. Looking at the ChangeLog
it seems that only bindings to the client window were broken. Probably
nothing that is used often. But I really can't remember exactly. There
was so much trouble there I don't know what it started with anymore.

> shouldn't it include the large number of recent changes?

Isn't this always the case? If we make a 2.1.8 package now and wait
two days, won't we again have some important fixes that have to be
included immediately? It's common practice in beta tests to have
releases in regular intervals (about one per two weeks) regardless
of what has been fixed or not. The point is that we are talking about
betas. Nobody should be using 2.1.x after 2.2 is out. So, what do we
care if something is broken (as long as it's not so bad that people
do not use the beta)?

Anyway, since Jason has already announced 2.1.7 this is a topic for
future discussion.

I'll continue that in a separate thread.

Bye

Dominik