[GRASS-dev] Can we release 6.2.3?

Markus_Neteler4 · November 16, 2007, 10:20pm

Due to the list migrations I lost track on the 6.2.3 backports.
Are there pressing outstanding things?
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/GRASS_6.2_Feature_Plan#6.2.3cvs
looks good to me.
Objections to release 6.2.3 on Monday?

Markus

H_B · November 18, 2007, 1:46am

Markus Neteler wrote:

Due to the list migrations I lost track on the 6.2.3 backports.
Are there pressing outstanding things?
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/GRASS_6.2_Feature_Plan#6.2.3cvs
looks good to me.
Objections to release 6.2.3 on Monday?

Is it worth updating to include latest EPSG 6.14?

Hamish

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

mlennert · November 18, 2007, 10:42am

On Fri, November 16, 2007 23:20, Markus Neteler wrote:

Due to the list migrations I lost track on the 6.2.3 backports.
Are there pressing outstanding things?
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/GRASS_6.2_Feature_Plan#6.2.3cvs
looks good to me.
Objections to release 6.2.3 on Monday?

No idea if the bugs listed there were the only once corrected since 6.2.
Would it make sense to systematically check the changelog in HEAD since
the date of release of 6.2.2 to see if there are other things that need
updating ? Has this been done already ? Is this too much work ?

Moritz

Markus_Neteler4 · November 18, 2007, 2:05pm

On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:42:45AM +0100, Moritz Lennert wrote:

On Fri, November 16, 2007 23:20, Markus Neteler wrote:
> Due to the list migrations I lost track on the 6.2.3 backports.
> Are there pressing outstanding things?
> http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/GRASS_6.2_Feature_Plan#6.2.3cvs
> looks good to me.
> Objections to release 6.2.3 on Monday?

No idea if the bugs listed there were the only once corrected since 6.2.
Would it make sense to systematically check the changelog in HEAD since
the date of release of 6.2.2 to see if there are other things that need
updating ? Has this been done already ? Is this too much work ?

It would be very good to check since the 6.2.2 release.

Markus

mlennert · November 18, 2007, 2:10pm

On Sun, November 18, 2007 15:05, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:42:45AM +0100, Moritz Lennert wrote:

On Fri, November 16, 2007 23:20, Markus Neteler wrote:
> Due to the list migrations I lost track on the 6.2.3 backports.
> Are there pressing outstanding things?
> http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/GRASS_6.2_Feature_Plan#6.2.3cvs
> looks good to me.
> Objections to release 6.2.3 on Monday?

No idea if the bugs listed there were the only once corrected since 6.2.
Would it make sense to systematically check the changelog in HEAD since
the date of release of 6.2.2 to see if there are other things that need
updating ? Has this been done already ? Is this too much work ?

It would be very good to check since the 6.2.2 release.

I don't know what the correct cvs command for that is.

Moritz

Markus_Neteler4 · November 18, 2007, 5:27pm

On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 03:10:18PM +0100, Moritz Lennert wrote:

On Sun, November 18, 2007 15:05, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:42:45AM +0100, Moritz Lennert wrote:
>> On Fri, November 16, 2007 23:20, Markus Neteler wrote:
>> > Due to the list migrations I lost track on the 6.2.3 backports.
>> > Are there pressing outstanding things?
>> > http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/GRASS_6.2_Feature_Plan#6.2.3cvs
>> > looks good to me.
>> > Objections to release 6.2.3 on Monday?
>>
>> No idea if the bugs listed there were the only once corrected since 6.2.
>> Would it make sense to systematically check the changelog in HEAD since
>> the date of release of 6.2.2 to see if there are other things that need
>> updating ? Has this been done already ? Is this too much work ?
>
> It would be very good to check since the 6.2.2 release.

I don't know what the correct cvs command for that is.

It is (in the release branch):

     CVSBRANCH=`cat CVS/Entries | grep AUTHORS | cut -d'/' -f6 | cut -b2-`
     echo $CVSBRANCH
     #version:
     MAJOR=`cat include/VERSION | head -1 | tail -1`
     MINOR=`cat include/VERSION | head -2 | tail -1`
     RELEASE=`cat include/VERSION | head -3 | tail -1`
     VERSION=${MAJOR}.${MINOR}.${RELEASE}
     echo $VERSION
     #create ChangeLog on release branch:
     sh tools/cvs2cl.pl --follow "$CVSBRANCH"
     mv ChangeLog ChangeLog_$VERSION

Markus

Markus_Neteler4 · November 20, 2007, 12:49pm

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:42:46PM +0100, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

>>>>> Markus Neteler <neteler@fbk.eu> writes:

[...]

>>> It would be very good to check since the 6.2.2 release.

>> I don't know what the correct cvs command for that is.

> It is (in the release branch):

> CVSBRANCH=`cat CVS/Entries | grep AUTHORS | cut -d'/' -f6 | cut -b2-`
> echo $CVSBRANCH
> #version:
> MAJOR=`cat include/VERSION | head -1 | tail -1`
> MINOR=`cat include/VERSION | head -2 | tail -1`
> RELEASE=`cat include/VERSION | head -3 | tail -1`

May I suggest using `sed' here instead? Like:

MAJOR=`sed -q -e 1p include/VERSION`
MINOR=`sed -q -e 2p include/VERSION`
RELEASE=`sed -q -e 3p include/VERSION`

Works only with a fix for me (-q not portable?):

MAJOR=`sed --q -e 1p include/VERSION`
MINOR=`sed --q -e 2p include/VERSION`
RELEASE=`sed --q -e 3p include/VERSION`
echo $MAJOR.$MINOR.$RELEASE

Markus

> VERSION=${MAJOR}.${MINOR}.${RELEASE}
> echo $VERSION
> #create ChangeLog on release branch:
> sh tools/cvs2cl.pl --follow "$CVSBRANCH"
> mv ChangeLog ChangeLog_$VERSION

William_Kyngesburye · November 20, 2007, 2:28pm

On Nov 20, 2007, at 6:49 AM, Markus Neteler wrote:

May I suggest using `sed' here instead? Like:

MAJOR=`sed -q -e 1p include/VERSION`
MINOR=`sed -q -e 2p include/VERSION`
RELEASE=`sed -q -e 3p include/VERSION`

Works only with a fix for me (-q not portable?):

MAJOR=`sed --q -e 1p include/VERSION`
MINOR=`sed --q -e 2p include/VERSION`
RELEASE=`sed --q -e 3p include/VERSION`
echo $MAJOR.$MINOR.$RELEASE

Looks like -q/--q is GNU sed-only. I see -n in the BSD sed man page and in GNU sed.

-----
William Kyngesburye <kyngchaos*at*kyngchaos*dot*com>
http://www.kyngchaos.com/

"Mon Dieu! but they are all alike. Cheating, murdering, lying, fighting, and all for things that the beasts of the jungle would not deign to possess - money to purchase the effeminate pleasures of weaklings. And yet withal bound down by silly customs that make them slaves to their unhappy lot while firm in the belief that they be the lords of creation enjoying the only real pleasures of existence....

- the wisdom of Tarzan

Glynn_Clements1 · November 20, 2007, 8:15pm

Markus Neteler wrote:

> >>> It would be very good to check since the 6.2.2 release.
>
> >> I don't know what the correct cvs command for that is.
>
> > It is (in the release branch):
>
> > CVSBRANCH=`cat CVS/Entries | grep AUTHORS | cut -d'/' -f6 | cut -b2-`
> > echo $CVSBRANCH
> > #version:
> > MAJOR=`cat include/VERSION | head -1 | tail -1`
> > MINOR=`cat include/VERSION | head -2 | tail -1`
> > RELEASE=`cat include/VERSION | head -3 | tail -1`
>
> May I suggest using `sed' here instead? Like:
>
> MAJOR=`sed -q -e 1p include/VERSION`
> MINOR=`sed -q -e 2p include/VERSION`
> RELEASE=`sed -q -e 3p include/VERSION`

Works only with a fix for me (-q not portable?):

MAJOR=`sed --q -e 1p include/VERSION`
MINOR=`sed --q -e 2p include/VERSION`
RELEASE=`sed --q -e 3p include/VERSION`
echo $MAJOR.$MINOR.$RELEASE

The "-n" flag is portable.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>

Markus_Neteler4 · November 20, 2007, 8:56pm

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:15:29PM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:

Markus Neteler wrote:

> > >>> It would be very good to check since the 6.2.2 release.
> >
> > >> I don't know what the correct cvs command for that is.
> >
> > > It is (in the release branch):
> >
> > > CVSBRANCH=`cat CVS/Entries | grep AUTHORS | cut -d'/' -f6 | cut -b2-`
> > > echo $CVSBRANCH
> > > #version:
> > > MAJOR=`cat include/VERSION | head -1 | tail -1`
> > > MINOR=`cat include/VERSION | head -2 | tail -1`
> > > RELEASE=`cat include/VERSION | head -3 | tail -1`
> >
> > May I suggest using `sed' here instead? Like:
> >
> > MAJOR=`sed -q -e 1p include/VERSION`
> > MINOR=`sed -q -e 2p include/VERSION`
> > RELEASE=`sed -q -e 3p include/VERSION`
>
> Works only with a fix for me (-q not portable?):
>
> MAJOR=`sed --q -e 1p include/VERSION`
> MINOR=`sed --q -e 2p include/VERSION`
> RELEASE=`sed --q -e 3p include/VERSION`
> echo $MAJOR.$MINOR.$RELEASE

The "-n" flag is portable.

Thanks for all these hints, but this discussion looks
a bit irrelevant to me. It was just my personal way
to extract the version numbers...

Better fix some bugs

Markus

Markus_Neteler4 · November 20, 2007, 9:33pm

HamishB wrote:

Markus Neteler wrote:

Due to the list migrations I lost track on the 6.2.3 backports.
Are there pressing outstanding things?
http://grass.gdf-hannover.de/wiki/GRASS_6.2_Feature_Plan#6.2.3cvs
looks good to me.
Objections to release 6.2.3 on Monday?

Is it worth updating to include latest EPSG 6.14?

Good suggestion.
I have sync'ed to EPSG 6.13 (from GRASS 6.3.0RC2 = HEAD today).
GDAL-SVN-HEAD doesn't seem to contain EPSG 6.14 yet. We always
rely on GDAL due to the file formatting.

Markus

PS: http://www.epsg-registry.org/ is really cool
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Can-we-release-6.2.3--tf4824273.html#a13866142
Sent from the Grass - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.