Ros-dev July 2021

ros-dev@reactos.org

3 participants
2 discussions

Re: [ros-dev] The situation with version 0.4.14
by George Bişoc 20 Jul '21

20 Jul '21

I'd also vote for the 1st point and ultimately list the current regressions in the press release. After all the remaining regressions can be fixed and further regression testing be continued in the next release as usual. Most of the regressions which belong within user mode aren't huge stop-blockers so I see no point in delaying the release much. Victor Perevertkin <victor.perevertkin(a)reactos.org> wrote on Tue, February 9th, 2021, 4:47 PM: > Hello! > > It seems for me that it's time to bring up the topic about our RC > version - 0.4.14. > > Our current "stable", 0.4.13 was branched on 30 September, 2019 > (remember those peacefull pre-COVID times :D) > That's quite some time, but not the main issue I'd like to discuss. > > 0.4.14 was branched on 24 April, 2020. That's almost a year already. > And we're in a difficult situation here - there are regressions, but > nobody fixed them within this long time. > According to https://reactos.org/wiki/Tests_for_0.4.14, there are 29 > unfixed regressions found for this release. I'd like to point out: most > of them are among usermode and non-kernel/driver functionality, and as > our development is mostly focused in the kernel right now, it's > unexpected for them to be fixed unless a volunteer comes up. > > A quick reminder. Our "releases" mechanism is useful for finding > regressions in the first place, there is no that much benefit for users > here, because we're still a "deep" alpha. Correct me if I'm wrong. > Joakim made a great job finding all regressions, and this work won't be > lost in any case. > > We can't wait forever and I think it's time to resolve this situation > somehow. I see two options: > 1. Release 0.4.14 as-is. There were a lot more buggy releases, nobody > dies from this. > 2. Skip 0.4.14. This already happened once in the history of the > project - 0.3.2 was skipped. I wasn't around at the time, but I may > guess that reasons were similar to what we have today. > (3.) Fix the bugs quickly. I don't expect this to happen, but who > knows, maybe a volunteer appears :) > > Let's vote. This seem to be the only way for us to decide on things. > Votes from the team members will be collected until 1 March. > > === > > I personally vote for skipping the release. The work on finding > regressions is already done, so the most important part of a release > cycle for us is there (thanks Joakim!) > If we do a release now, all the stuff we were writing in news reports > for the last 6 month would be missing from it. That would cause (as I > think) a lot of confusion to people. Moreover 0.4.14 is not that > featureful release itself (compared to 0.4.13, which brought the new > USB stack) > So I suggest to move on and start checking 0.4.15 for regressions. I > expect quite some of them to appear and we need time for fixing. > > > Cheers, > Victor

3 2

Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [reactos] 01/01: [COMCTL32] Addendum to last commit (#3674) CORE-17199
by Colin Finck 04 Jul '21

04 Jul '21

Joachim Henze wrote: > commit adee5ca255b7ed21f359ca8c1ca06bd44db90dcf > Author: Joachim Henze <Joachim.Henze at reactos.org> > AuthorDate: Mon Jun 28 02:05:56 2021 +0200 > Commit: Joachim Henze <Joachim.Henze at reactos.org> > CommitDate: Mon Jun 28 02:05:56 2021 +0200 > > [COMCTL32] Addendum to last commit (#3674) CORE-17199 > > Keep that section like we had it to > support compilation on VS2010. > It does still work like that. > > [...] > > diff --git a/dll/win32/comctl32/datetime.c b/dll/win32/comctl32/datetime.c > index 71bb3d238b0..51e58fc71f1 100644 > --- a/dll/win32/comctl32/datetime.c > +++ b/dll/win32/comctl32/datetime.c > @@ -130,8 +130,13 @@ static const WCHAR allowedformatchars[] = L"dhHmMstyX"; > static const int maxrepetition [] = {4,2,2,2,4,2,2,4,-1}; > > /* valid date limits */ > +#ifndef __REACTOS__ > static const SYSTEMTIME max_allowed_date = { .wYear = 9999, .wMonth = 12, .wDayOfWeek = 0, .wDay = 31 }; > static const SYSTEMTIME min_allowed_date = { .wYear = 1752, .wMonth = 9, .wDayOfWeek = 0, .wDay = 14 }; > +#else > +static const SYSTEMTIME max_allowed_date = { /*.wYear =*/ 9999, /*.wMonth =*/ 12, /*.wDayOfWeek =*/ 0, /*.wDay =*/ 31 }; > +static const SYSTEMTIME min_allowed_date = { /*.wYear =*/ 1752, /*.wMonth =*/ 9, /*.wDayOfWeek =*/ 0, /*.wDay =*/ 14 }; > +#endif This adds an unnecessary ReactOS-specific diff to a file that was perfectly in sync with Wine 6.0 before, just for supporting an old compiler that has not only been abandoned by us, but obviously also upstream. Being able to source this file unmodified (and eventually sourcing all of comctl32 automatically via a Git submodule/subpath/repo xml file) beats any such hack. I therefore call for a revert. Even worse than all of that, this commit has been silently sneaked on top of a PR without any review! Joachim, you love to criticize the instability of the master branch, yet continue to ignore basic development practices we have established. And this isn't happening for the first time. Another example is https://github.com/reactos/reactos/commit/889eab78ca7c0f17a2ada9ff20de5807a… where you disable sanity checks and create a diff to upstream. All without reviews and all just for your private goal of reducing the binary size of debug builds, something that is not important at the current stage of ReactOS. I would love to see PRs for your ideas, and then we can discuss everything that hasn't been decided before (i.e. not VS2010 support again). But if this doesn't stop, I have no chance other than removing your push access to the GitHub repo, as everything else would mean condoning that uncooperative behavior. Best regards, Colin

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev July 2021