On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 01:24:19AM +1200, Hamish wrote:
> The current (and desired) situation is now:
> We have
>
> - 5.0.3 release_branch (RC3 at time, waiting for release)
> - 5.3.0-cvs: new PROJ engine, modified NVIZ, G3D updated
> tons of fixes
> - 5.7.0-cvs: former 5.1, new vector engine, DBMS support etc
>
> The 5.7.0-cvs instructions should refer to 5.3.0, I tried to
> update the relevant texts such as INSTALL etc.
>
> Please make further updates if needed.
>
> After getting 5.0.3 out of the door we should consider a
> first 5.3.0 and also 5.7.0 release.
I apologize for bringing up more meaningless version number debates,
but why 5.3.0 and not 5.3.9? Why not 5.4.0pre1? 5.3.0 seems many
releases away from 5.4.0 (even though the distance is meaningless).
After 5.3.9 comes 5.3.10, so that would not help much ... 
We actually want to have more experimental releases more directly
from the CVS tree. So it is fine to assume we might have 5.0.4.
5.3.1 5.3.2 and a few more.
Is 5.4.0 really that far off? What's missing besides testing, testing,
testing?
We don't know, only testing can tell,
but according to software engineering that takes up more then 50%
of the actually software construct efforts, so yes I believe 5.4.0
is a bit away.
Is there a list of critical bugs that need to be fixed before
release? (e.g. NVIZ/Tk 8.4 on some systems; OSX & solaris build
problems; r.terraflow CVS update) Is there any major missing
code or subsystems?
We should put bugs in the bugtracker
and quite some of them are in there.
So they probably need categorisation.
By the same argument, what's missing before a 5.7.0-experimental
release and grass51 CVS moving to 5.7.1? (yes, code merge- wait just
until 5.4.0 is out & thus in buxfixe only mode?) Is it too much to
unwind the 'make mix' symlinks and make a source-only 5.7.0 release now?
(I guess that means no CVS checkout of 5.7.0 and not a very good idea)
There was a plan once, before the new roadmap came out.
Dig in the mailinglist archives.
If we do a merge early before, 5.4.0 is out, applying changes to both
trees is double the work, a pain, and bug prone. The sooner 5.4.0 is out
and all new changes go to the 5.7 branch the better, I think.
Yes, but there never was enough help to actually control other
developers to not add non-critical bug fixes to the other branches.