[GRASS-dev] [release planning] GRASS GIS 7.0.6

neteler · June 25, 2017, 7:15pm

Hi,

given the important ctypes/GCC 7 fix in trac #3331 I suggest to also
release GRASS GIS 7.0.6 (currently unplanned).

The related milestone is this one:
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/milestone/7.0.6

Given the fact that in general we rather concentrate on 7.2.x releases
(or even higher version numbers), I'd keep this 7.0.6 maintenance
release as simple as possible.

If there aren't any objections, I'll start to prepare things

Markus

Markus_Metz · June 25, 2017, 8:12pm

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

Hi,

given the important ctypes/GCC 7 fix in trac #3331

has this been properly tested on all supported platforms?

I suggest to also
release GRASS GIS 7.0.6 (currently unplanned).

are there any features in 7.0 that are not present or not working in 7.2?

If not, I would rather encourage users to upgrade to 7.2.y instead of providing a new 7.0.y release.

Some bug fixes might have been backported from trunk to relbr72, but not to relbr70. These would need to be backported to relbr70 as well.

my2c

Markus M

The related milestone is this one:
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/milestone/7.0.6

Given the fact that in general we rather concentrate on 7.2.x releases
(or even higher version numbers), I’d keep this 7.0.6 maintenance
release as simple as possible.

If there aren’t any objections, I’ll start to prepare things

Markus

grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

neteler · June 25, 2017, 9:39pm

On Jun 25, 2017 10:12 PM, “Markus Metz” <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

Hi,

given the important ctypes/GCC 7 fix in trac #3331

has this been properly tested on all supported platforms?

So far on Mac, Windows, Fedora, and OpenSUSE.

I suggest to also
release GRASS GIS 7.0.6 (currently unplanned).

are there any features in 7.0 that are not present or not working in 7.2?

If not, I would rather encourage users to upgrade to 7.2.y instead of providing a new 7.0.y release.

The problem is that GRASS will be kicked out of Fedora since it does not compile on F26. Likewise in similar modern distros where no update to 7.2 happens for whatever reason.

Some bug fixes might have been backported from trunk to relbr72, but not to relbr70. These would need to be backported to relbr70 as well.

Not sure… We may keep it to a minimum to avoid above mentioned mess. it took so long to get accepted…

Best.
markusN

my2c

Markus M

The related milestone is this one:
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/milestone/7.0.6

Given the fact that in general we rather concentrate on 7.2.x releases
(or even higher version numbers), I’d keep this 7.0.6 maintenance
release as simple as possible.

If there aren’t any objections, I’ll start to prepare things

Markus

grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

Markus_Metz · June 26, 2017, 12:49pm

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

On Jun 25, 2017 10:12 PM, “Markus Metz” <markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

Hi,

given the important ctypes/GCC 7 fix in trac #3331

has this been properly tested on all supported platforms?

So far on Mac, Windows, Fedora, and OpenSUSE.

I suggest to also
release GRASS GIS 7.0.6 (currently unplanned).

are there any features in 7.0 that are not present or not working in 7.2?

If not, I would rather encourage users to upgrade to 7.2.y instead of providing a new 7.0.y release.

The problem is that GRASS will be kicked out of Fedora since it does not compile on F26. Likewise in similar modern distros where no update to 7.2 happens for whatever reason.

That means, some distros would update GRASS from 7.0.5 to 7.0.6 but not to 7.2.2? Weird.

Sounds like both a new 7.0 and a new 7.2 should be released soon.

Markus M

Some bug fixes might have been backported from trunk to relbr72, but not to relbr70. These would need to be backported to relbr70 as well.

Not sure… We may keep it to a minimum to avoid above mentioned mess. it took so long to get accepted…

Best.
markusN

my2c

Markus M

The related milestone is this one:
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/milestone/7.0.6

Given the fact that in general we rather concentrate on 7.2.x releases
(or even higher version numbers), I’d keep this 7.0.6 maintenance
release as simple as possible.

If there aren’t any objections, I’ll start to prepare things

Markus

grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

neteler · June 26, 2017, 1:42pm

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Markus Metz
<markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

...

That means, some distros would update GRASS from 7.0.5 to 7.0.6 but not to
7.2.2? Weird.

AFAIK their rationale is to introduce major updates only within a full
distro release cycle.
However, I am just guessing here, extrapolating from what I observed
in Fedora and Debian.

Sounds like both a new 7.0 and a new 7.2 should be released soon.

IMHO yes.

markusN

mlennert · June 26, 2017, 1:54pm

On 26/06/17 15:42, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Markus Metz
<markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

...

That means, some distros would update GRASS from 7.0.5 to 7.0.6 but not to
7.2.2? Weird.

AFAIK their rationale is to introduce major updates only within a full
distro release cycle.
However, I am just guessing here, extrapolating from what I observed
in Fedora and Debian.

In Debian, it's mostly a question of timing between Debian freeze for a new release and our releases. The new stable was released a week ago with 7.2.0-2, and Debian testing has 7.2.1-1.

Moritz

neteler · June 27, 2017, 9:49am

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:

On 26/06/17 15:42, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Markus Metz

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>

...

That means, some distros would update GRASS from 7.0.5 to 7.0.6 but not
to 7.2.2? Weird.

AFAIK their rationale is to introduce major updates only within a full
distro release cycle.
However, I am just guessing here, extrapolating from what I observed
in Fedora and Debian.

In Debian, it's mostly a question of timing between Debian freeze for a new
release and our releases. The new stable was released a week ago with
7.2.0-2, and Debian testing has 7.2.1-1.

FWIW, I got 7.2.1 into Fedora yesterday via maintainer Devrim Gündüz
(my updated SPEC file + ctypes patch):

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1972

Ok, back to the topic:
If the majority of grass-devs thinks that a 7.0.6 release is not
needed, I'm ok with that. Maintainers just need to understand that the
final patch from #3331 is needed to compile with GCC 7.

markusN

marisn · June 28, 2017, 9:59am

Of course we can release 7.0.6., still I wouldn't expect any distro
already shipping 7.0 to "upgrade" GCC to 7 without upgrading the rest
of packages, as GCC 7 would break not only GRASS GIS.

At the end it is call for the release manager (Markus?) to decide if
he's into packaging et al.

Māris.

2017-06-27 12:49 GMT+03:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:

On 26/06/17 15:42, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Markus Metz

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>

...

That means, some distros would update GRASS from 7.0.5 to 7.0.6 but not
to 7.2.2? Weird.

AFAIK their rationale is to introduce major updates only within a full
distro release cycle.
However, I am just guessing here, extrapolating from what I observed
in Fedora and Debian.

In Debian, it's mostly a question of timing between Debian freeze for a new
release and our releases. The new stable was released a week ago with
7.2.0-2, and Debian testing has 7.2.1-1.

FWIW, I got 7.2.1 into Fedora yesterday via maintainer Devrim Gündüz
(my updated SPEC file + ctypes patch):

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1972

Ok, back to the topic:
If the majority of grass-devs thinks that a 7.0.6 release is not
needed, I'm ok with that. Maintainers just need to understand that the
final patch from #3331 is needed to compile with GCC 7.

markusN
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

mlennert · June 28, 2017, 10:55am

On 28/06/17 11:59, Maris Nartiss wrote:

Of course we can release 7.0.6., still I wouldn't expect any distro
already shipping 7.0 to "upgrade" GCC to 7 without upgrading the rest
of packages, as GCC 7 would break not only GRASS GIS.

At the end it is call for the release manager (Markus?) to decide if
he's into packaging et al.

I would say that we leave it to distro maintainers to apply the existing patch if they really need it.

Moritz

Māris.

2017-06-27 12:49 GMT+03:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Moritz Lennert
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:

On 26/06/17 15:42, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Markus Metz

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>

...

That means, some distros would update GRASS from 7.0.5 to 7.0.6 but not
to 7.2.2? Weird.

AFAIK their rationale is to introduce major updates only within a full
distro release cycle.
However, I am just guessing here, extrapolating from what I observed
in Fedora and Debian.

In Debian, it's mostly a question of timing between Debian freeze for a new
release and our releases. The new stable was released a week ago with
7.2.0-2, and Debian testing has 7.2.1-1.

FWIW, I got 7.2.1 into Fedora yesterday via maintainer Devrim Gündüz
(my updated SPEC file + ctypes patch):

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1972

Ok, back to the topic:
If the majority of grass-devs thinks that a 7.0.6 release is not
needed, I'm ok with that. Maintainers just need to understand that the
final patch from #3331 is needed to compile with GCC 7.

markusN
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

neteler · June 28, 2017, 8:42pm

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Maris Nartiss <maris.gis@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course we can release 7.0.6., still I wouldn't expect any distro
already shipping 7.0 to "upgrade" GCC to 7 without upgrading the rest
of packages, as GCC 7 would break not only GRASS GIS.

Well, distros update compiler versions from time to time.
If the individual packages can cope with that is a separate issue...

At the end it is call for the release manager (Markus?) to decide if
he's into packaging et al.

Interest is low

Markus

Markus_Metz · July 13, 2017, 6:45am

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Maris Nartiss <maris.gis@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course we can release 7.0.6., still I wouldn’t expect any distro
already shipping 7.0 to “upgrade” GCC to 7 without upgrading the rest
of packages, as GCC 7 would break not only GRASS GIS.

Well, distros update compiler versions from time to time.
If the individual packages can cope with that is a separate issue…

At the end it is call for the release manager (Markus?) to decide if
he’s into packaging et al.

Interest is low

Should relbr70 be further maintained or are we focussing on relbr72 and trunk?

Markus M

neteler · March 1, 2018, 2:16pm

Hi Devs,

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Markus Metz
<markus.metz.giswork@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Maris Nartiss <maris.gis@gmail.com>
> Of course we can release 7.0.6., still I wouldn't expect any distro
> already shipping 7.0 to "upgrade" GCC to 7 without upgrading the rest
> of packages, as GCC 7 would break not only GRASS GIS.

Well, distros update compiler versions from time to time.
If the individual packages can cope with that is a separate issue...

> At the end it is call for the release manager (Markus?) to decide if
> he's into packaging et al.

Interest is low

Should relbr70 be further maintained or are we focussing on relbr72 and
trunk?

Here the unpublished changes as one-liners:
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/log/grass/branches/releasebranch_7_0?action=stop_on_copy&mode=stop_on_copy&rev=72287&stop_rev=69637&limit=400

and expanded:
https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/changeset?reponame=&new=72182%40grass%2Fbranches%2Freleasebranch_7_0&old=69637%40grass%2Fbranches%2Freleasebranch_7_0

As mentioned elsewhere, I volunteer for packaging 7.0.6 without extra
efforts, i.e.: tagging, tarball, CMS + trac update, done.

markusN

martinl · March 1, 2018, 4:09pm

Hi,

2018-03-01 15:16 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:

As mentioned elsewhere, I volunteer for packaging 7.0.6 without extra
efforts, i.e.: tagging, tarball, CMS + trac update, done.

I can do release by tomorrow. Ma

--
Martin Landa
http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/gwiki/Landa
http://gismentors.cz/mentors/landa

neteler · March 1, 2018, 6:27pm

Good, I can tag and package 7.0.6 tonight.

Markus

···

Am 01.03.2018 5:09 nachm. schrieb “Martin Landa” <landa.martin@gmail.com>:

Hi,

2018-03-01 15:16 GMT+01:00 Markus Neteler <neteler@osgeo.org>:

As mentioned elsewhere, I volunteer for packaging 7.0.6 without extra
efforts, i.e.: tagging, tarball, CMS + trac update, done.

I can do release by tomorrow. Ma