A call for 0.2.8

[WaxDragon]

I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
to branch 0.2.8.

After a period of instability, trunk is now showing stability.  GvG
and Ged reported surprising stability from the LinuxWorld demo builds,
I personally had favorable results from my September State of the Repo
tests.  Last night I was able to build a ReactOS bootcd under r18404,
and then take that bootcd and install it under qemu, under ROS! 
Gunnar's win32k changes have had some time to bake in and seem ok*.
There have been approximately 1800 commits since 0.2.7, and I want
those changes to get some general use..

I don't want to *release* now, but I want to tag the branch now, and
maybe release in two weeks (which would make three months sine 0.2.7).
 Putting out an RC1 would give the codebase exposure to the general
public, who may find problems we as devs overlook.  This will also
give devs and testers a change to focus on some of the big issues I
see at the moment, *like this mysterious hang we see on shutdown. 
Also, those who wish to move forward can do so, even breaking /
destabilising the tree.

Giving us two or three weeks for testing release canidates will also
allow for the PnP/USB and ws2_32 work to be merged in before the
release.

WD

--
<arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization

[Magnus Olsen]

Hi
I do not think it good idea for 0.2.8
winquake works, But not Quake2 any longer in ros, last time I try it.
But we manger getting other software working in ros. Before any new relase
of
ros I would like see this being fix. Another fix I wold like see is the
Diablo 2 installer crash
being fix. it is same crash as StarCraft got.  I know GvG and Filip are
aware this problem
and GvG need think how to fix Diablo 2 and StarCaft  Installer. it is
releate to DIB create.
The Quake2 problem iI do not know excaly  why it freze, and I ´not going to
check it any
fututer  what the oroblem lies. I have not check the Unreal Turment or
Tribles if they are still
working,   DrFred reportetd CS does not crash if it does not found right
ressoltion, as it did
before, it was releate to a bug in win32k  ntddraw code (directdraw),

I am against any new release until we got 0.3.0 roadmap inplace. I  alot of
people do not
want see a 0.2.x release. The are waiting on 0.3.0. For the network.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "WaxDragon" [e-mail]
To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
Sent: den 11 October 2005 17:48
Subject: [ros-dev] A call for 0.2.8
> I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
> to branch 0.2.8.
>
> After a period of instability, trunk is now showing stability.  GvG
> and Ged reported surprising stability from the LinuxWorld demo builds,
> I personally had favorable results from my September State of the Repo
> tests.  Last night I was able to build a ReactOS bootcd under r18404,
> and then take that bootcd and install it under qemu, under ROS!
> Gunnar's win32k changes have had some time to bake in and seem ok*.
> There have been approximately 1800 commits since 0.2.7, and I want
> those changes to get some general use..
>
> I don't want to *release* now, but I want to tag the branch now, and
> maybe release in two weeks (which would make three months sine 0.2.7).
>  Putting out an RC1 would give the codebase exposure to the general
> public, who may find problems we as devs overlook.  This will also
> give devs and testers a change to focus on some of the big issues I
> see at the moment, *like this mysterious hang we see on shutdown.
> Also, those who wish to move forward can do so, even breaking /
> destabilising the tree.
>
> Giving us two or three weeks for testing release canidates will also
> allow for the PnP/USB and ws2_32 work to be merged in before the
> release.
>
> WD
>
> --
> <arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date:

2005-10-09
>

[James Tabor]

WaxDragon wrote:
> I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
> to branch 0.2.8.

Yes,
This is a gnu gpl project and we need a new release. I guess we can start one.
So Yes for 0.2.8.
James

[Aleksey Bragin]

I'm for 0.2.8, since it gets us
1) more publicity
2) good testing
3) gets more people interested
4) If we have network working rock-stable a week after 0.2.8, I don't  
think it's gonna be a problem to release 0.3.0 as early as we think  
it works cool and stable.

Magnus is right, but it's not major issues, and we would have 2 weeks  
specifically for bughunt, which should remove these bugs.

WBR,
Aleksey Bragin.

On Oct 11, 2005, at 7:48 PM, WaxDragon wrote:
> I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
> to branch 0.2.8.
>
> -= skip =-

[Ge van Geldorp]

> From: WaxDragon
>
> I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think 
> it's time to branch 0.2.8.

I agree completely.

Gé van Geldorp.

[Brandon Turner]

I think 0.2.8 would be OK to release.  We have Fireball's USB code.  And 
maybe Alex's winsock and/or hpoussin's pnp code. So as long as we have 
something to show other then a new version number I'm fine with it.

Brandon

WaxDragon wrote:
> I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
> to branch 0.2.8.
>
> After a period of instability, trunk is now showing stability.  GvG
> and Ged reported surprising stability from the LinuxWorld demo builds,
> I personally had favorable results from my September State of the Repo
> tests.  Last night I was able to build a ReactOS bootcd under r18404,
> and then take that bootcd and install it under qemu, under ROS! 
> Gunnar's win32k changes have had some time to bake in and seem ok*.
> There have been approximately 1800 commits since 0.2.7, and I want
> those changes to get some general use..
>
> I don't want to *release* now, but I want to tag the branch now, and
> maybe release in two weeks (which would make three months sine 0.2.7).
> Putting out an RC1 would give the codebase exposure to the general
> public, who may find problems we as devs overlook.  This will also
> give devs and testers a change to focus on some of the big issues I
> see at the moment, *like this mysterious hang we see on shutdown. 
> Also, those who wish to move forward can do so, even breaking /
> destabilising the tree.
>
> Giving us two or three weeks for testing release canidates will also
> allow for the PnP/USB and ws2_32 work to be merged in before the
> release.
>
> WD
>
> --
> <arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Ged]

WaxDragon wrote:
> I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
> to branch 0.2.8.

I definetley agree with 0.2.8 branch.
Ge and I were amazed at the stability, and I think we should branch now 
before any more big commits come in.

Ged.

[Casper Hornstrup]

You can always branch back in time. Subversion is a time machine ;-)

Casper
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ged
> Sent: 11. oktober 2005 20:53
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] A call for 0.2.8
>
> WaxDragon wrote:
> > I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
> > to branch 0.2.8.
>
> I definetley agree with 0.2.8 branch.
> Ge and I were amazed at the stability, and I think we should branch now
> before any more big commits come in.
>
> Ged.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[WaxDragon]

On 10/11/05, Casper Hornstrup [e-mail] wrote:
> You can always branch back in time. Subversion is a time machine ;-)
>
> Casper

Yup.  I propose 18406 as the branch point.  Do we need to hunt down
RobertK or is the release process documented anywhere?

WD
--
<arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization

[Robert]

This would still work out with my plans.
I'll be able to do this release. BTW I intended to document and 
rbuildify (or the like) the process

WaxDragon schrieb:
> On 10/11/05, Casper Hornstrup [e-mail] wrote:
> > You can always branch back in time. Subversion is a time machine ;-)
> >
> > Casper
>
> Yup.  I propose 18406 as the branch point.  Do we need to hunt down
> RobertK or is the release process documented anywhere?
> WD
>
> <arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Brandon Turner]

Since it looks like there will be a 0.2.8...  If no one else wants to 
step up and learn your role for while you are gone, then I will take do 
it(As long as no one has any objections) and help with the documention 
and with the rbuild changes. Just let me know.

Brandon

Robert wrote:
> This would still work out with my plans.
> I'll be able to do this release. BTW I intended to document and 
> rbuildify (or the like) the process
>
> WaxDragon schrieb:
> > On 10/11/05, Casper Hornstrup [e-mail] wrote:
> > > You can always branch back in time. Subversion is a time machine ;-)
> > >
> > > Casper
> >
> > Yup.  I propose 18406 as the branch point.  Do we need to hunt down
> > RobertK or is the release process documented anywhere?
> > WD
> >
> > <arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Robert Köpferl]

I think that's a good Idea.
I'll show you how to release it.
Add my icq: 38739095

Brandon Turner wrote:
> Since it looks like there will be a 0.2.8...  If no one else wants to 
> step up and learn your role for while you are gone, then I will take do 
> it(As long as no one has any objections) and help with the documention 
> and with the rbuild changes. Just let me know.
>
> Brandon
>
> Robert wrote:
> > This would still work out with my plans.
> > I'll be able to do this release. BTW I intended to document and 
> > rbuildify (or the like) the process
> >
> > WaxDragon schrieb:
> > > On 10/11/05, Casper Hornstrup [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > You can always branch back in time. Subversion is a time machine ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Casper
> > >
> > > Yup.  I propose 18406 as the branch point.  Do we need to hunt down
> > > RobertK or is the release process documented anywhere?
> > > WD
> > >
> > > <arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Brandon Turner]

I don't have ICQ but I am in IRC almost all the time, as is WaxDragon.

WaxDragon and I started to fumble through the process.  Please fill this 
in as you go or ahead of time.  
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Release_Process

I am willing to do as much or as little work on this on release as you 
want, just let me know.  We kinda want a RC this weekend if possible.

GvG added Fireball, WaxDragon(?), and myself to reactos.sf.net admin.

Hope to hear from ya soon,
Brandon

Robert Köpferl wrote:
> I think that's a good Idea.
> I'll show you how to release it.
> Add my icq: 38739095
>
> Brandon Turner wrote:
> > Since it looks like there will be a 0.2.8...  If no one else wants to 
> > step up and learn your role for while you are gone, then I will take 
> > do it(As long as no one has any objections) and help with the 
> > documention and with the rbuild changes. Just let me know.
> >
> > Brandon
> >
> > Robert wrote:
> > > This would still work out with my plans.
> > > I'll be able to do this release. BTW I intended to document and 
> > > rbuildify (or the like) the process
> > >
> > > WaxDragon schrieb:
> > > > On 10/11/05, Casper Hornstrup [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > You can always branch back in time. Subversion is a time machine ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Casper
> > > >
> > > > Yup.  I propose 18406 as the branch point.  Do we need to hunt down
> > > > RobertK or is the release process documented anywhere?
> > > > WD
> > > >
> > > > <arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Christoph von Wittich]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A picture says more than 1000 words :-)

http://www.ApiViewer.de/downloads/mozilla.png

Regards,
Christoph v. Wittich
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD4DBQFDTaAd0ADPczu7wMoRAkT+AJ4jDtSl8ORbtV5GTUAMd2kI26S7bwCYt9kV
> W+TeyYd9DgPlol25Uspy/Q==
> =lANH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[James Tabor]

Christoph von Wittich wrote:
> A picture says more than 1000 words :-)
>
> http://www.ApiViewer.de/downloads/mozilla.png

Wow!
Looks like it does!
James

> Christoph von Wittich wrote:
> > A picture says more than 1000 words :-)
> >
> > http://www.ApiViewer.de/downloads/mozilla.png
>
> Wow!
> Looks like it does!
> James

Ok, so we don't wait for a very big news for 0.2.8 any more :-)
So let's release it!

[Richard Campbell]

But how WELL does mozilla work with it?  Well enough we could include it 
with 0.2.8?

[e-mail] wrote:
> > Christoph von Wittich wrote:
> > > A picture says more than 1000 words :-)
> > >
> > > http://www.ApiViewer.de/downloads/mozilla.png
> >
> > Wow!
> > Looks like it does!
> > James
>
> Ok, so we don't wait for a very big news for 0.2.8 any more :-)
> So let's release it!
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[WaxDragon]

In retrospect, I think 18402 would be better, Gunnar's malloc changes
are turning up little bugs, and I'm not sure we want to hunt down all
of those for the release.

On 10/11/05, WaxDragon [e-mail] wrote:
> On 10/11/05, Casper Hornstrup [e-mail] wrote:
> > You can always branch back in time. Subversion is a time machine ;-)
> >
> > Casper
>
> Yup.  I propose 18406 as the branch point.  Do we need to hunt down
> RobertK or is the release process documented anywhere?
> WD
>
> <arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization

--
<arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization

[James Pritchard]

WaxDragon wrote:
> I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
> to branch 0.2.8.

Much anticipated,  can't wait to start testing a new release.

FYI.  The feature I would find most useful is USB HID support.

James

[Emanuele Aliberti]

WaxDragon wrote:
> I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
> to branch 0.2.8.
>
> After a period of instability, trunk is now showing stability.  GvG
> and Ged reported surprising stability from the LinuxWorld demo builds,

I agree and the timeframe you propose seems OK. Should we release when 
it is unstable?
-- 
:Emanuele Aliberti

[Robert]

I do also think that we should do another release.
The suggested timetable would suit me rather good. Since I am home for 
another 3 weeks, this would just work, until my voyage starts.

WaxDragon schrieb:
> I know how most of the devs feel about releases, but I think it's time
> to branch 0.2.8.
>
> After a period of instability, trunk is now showing stability.  GvG
> and Ged reported surprising stability from the LinuxWorld demo builds,
> I personally had favorable results from my September State of the Repo
> tests.  Last night I was able to build a ReactOS bootcd under r18404,
> and then take that bootcd and install it under qemu, under ROS! 
> Gunnar's win32k changes have had some time to bake in and seem ok*.
> There have been approximately 1800 commits since 0.2.7, and I want
> those changes to get some general use..
>
> I don't want to *release* now, but I want to tag the branch now, and
> maybe release in two weeks (which would make three months sine 0.2.7).
> Putting out an RC1 would give the codebase exposure to the general
> public, who may find problems we as devs overlook.  This will also
> give devs and testers a change to focus on some of the big issues I
> see at the moment, *like this mysterious hang we see on shutdown. 
> Also, those who wish to move forward can do so, even breaking /
> destabilising the tree.
>
> Giving us two or three weeks for testing release canidates will also
> allow for the PnP/USB and ws2_32 work to be merged in before the
> release.
>
> WD
>
> --
> <arty> don't question it ... it's clearly an optimization
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev