All months again: New Release

[Robert Köpferl]

Hi,
we're stright aproaching a new release.
Or at first: A branch.
What about the version number? As far as I followed the discussions, 0.3 
is still away :-( .

And how about our new build system. Is it successfully running?
I for my part would feel more comfortable if the next 
intermediate-release would still use the old build system.

[Alex Ionescu]

Robert Köpferl wrote:

>   Hi,
>  we're stright aproaching a new release.
>  Or at first: A branch.
>  What about the version number? As far as I followed the discussions, 
>  0.3 is still away :-( .
>
>  And how about our new build system. Is it successfully running?
>  I for my part would feel more comfortable if the next 
>  intermediate-release would still use the old build system.
>  
I am against a new release.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Gedi]

Alex Ionescu wrote:

>   Robert Köpferl wrote:
>
> >   Hi,
> >  we're stright aproaching a new release.
> >  Or at first: A branch.
> >  What about the version number? As far as I followed the discussions, 
> >  0.3 is still away :-( .
> >
> >  And how about our new build system. Is it successfully running?
> >  I for my part would feel more comfortable if the next 
> >  intermediate-release would still use the old build system.
> >  
>  I am against a new release.
>
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu 
You gotta give a reason.

How far are we estimating for 0.3 ?

Ged.

[Alex Ionescu]

Gedi wrote:

>   Alex Ionescu wrote:
>
> >   Robert Köpferl wrote:
> >
> > >   Hi,
> > >  we're stright aproaching a new release.
> > >  Or at first: A branch.
> > >  What about the version number? As far as I followed the discussions, 
> > >  0.3 is still away :-( .
> > >
> > >  And how about our new build system. Is it successfully running?
> > >  I for my part would feel more comfortable if the next 
> > >  intermediate-release would still use the old build system.
> > >  
> >  I am against a new release.
> >
> >  Best regards,
> >  Alex Ionescu 
>
>  You gotta give a reason. 
It's been given many times:

- Still no usable networking for users
- Blocker bugs
- No big features (since networking/basic pnp are still not working)
- Confusion and dillution for users. Our releases start becoming 
meaningless.

>  
>  How far are we estimating for 0.3 ? 
When users will be able to install networking seamlessly (meaning we 
will support the big chipsets and basic PnP detection) and configure 
their IP address and other settings through the CPL instead of editing 
weird hexadecimal numbers in the registry.

>  
>  Ged. 
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[WaxDragon]

I have to disagree.  I'd rather see a release before breaking the tree
again.  Current SVN is better* than 0.2.6, and I think that is all
most our "users" care about.

*vanilla bootcds now work with qemu's -user-net, and you can set the
video resolution.

I vote for 0.2.7!



On 5/27/05, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>   Gedi wrote:
>  
> >   Alex Ionescu wrote:
> >
> > >   Robert Köpferl wrote:
> > >
> > > >   Hi,
> > > >  we're stright aproaching a new release.
> > > >  Or at first: A branch.
> > > >  What about the version number? As far as I followed the discussions,
> > > >  0.3 is still away :-( .
> > > >
> > > >  And how about our new build system. Is it successfully running?
> > > >  I for my part would feel more comfortable if the next
> > > >  intermediate-release would still use the old build system.
> > > >  
> > >  I am against a new release.
> > >
> > >  Best regards,
> > >  Alex Ionescu 
> >
> >  You gotta give a reason. 
>  
>  It's been given many times:
>  
>  - Still no usable networking for users
>  - Blocker bugs
>  - No big features (since networking/basic pnp are still not working)
>  - Confusion and dillution for users. Our releases start becoming
>  meaningless.
>  
> >  
> >  How far are we estimating for 0.3 ? 
>  
>  When users will be able to install networking seamlessly (meaning we
>  will support the big chipsets and basic PnP detection) and configure
>  their IP address and other settings through the CPL instead of editing
>  weird hexadecimal numbers in the registry.
>  
> >  
> >  Ged. 
>  
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>   

-- 
<kjk_hyperion> I have a penchant for mischief, property damage and stalking
<kjk_hyperion> and cheesecake, of course

[Alex Ionescu]

WaxDragon wrote:

>  I have to disagree.  I'd rather see a release
> before breaking the tree
> again.  Current SVN is better* than 0.2.6, and I think that is all
> most our "users" care about.
>
> *vanilla bootcds now work with qemu's -user-net, and you can set the
> video resolution.
>
> I vote for 0.2.7!
>
>   
>  
Current SVN has a bunch of blocker bugs, including broken support for 
VMWare 5.0, big networking bugs and object leaks.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Jason Filby]

On 5/28/05, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
>   Current SVN has a bunch of blocker bugs, including
> broken support for
>  VMWare 5.0, big networking bugs and object leaks. 
I have to agree... this release won't look much better than 0.2.6 (a
bit worse?) considering some of the regressions and blocker bugs. On
the other hand, if we at least branch for 0.2.7 then we could
hopefully prevent further regressions and save the fixes for the
release branch without holding up new features.

Cheers
Jason

[James Tabor]

Jason Filby wrote:
>   On 5/28/05, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
> wrote:
>  
> >  Current SVN has a bunch of blocker bugs, including
> > broken support for
> > VMWare 5.0, big networking bugs and object leaks. 
>  
>  
>  I have to agree... this release won't look much better than 0.2.6 (a
>  bit worse?) considering some of the regressions and blocker bugs. On
>  the other hand, if we at least branch for 0.2.7 then we could
>  hopefully prevent further regressions and save the fixes for the
>  release branch without holding up new features.
>  
>  Cheers
>  Jason
>   
Yes, please let's give it another month, usb is just right around
the corner okay?
James

[Robert Köpferl]

I have to agree.
It just was time again to do a build. However, now seems to be a rather 
bad time to do that. neither flesh, fowl nor good red

James Tabor wrote:
>   Jason Filby wrote:
>  
> >   On 5/28/05, Alex Ionescu
> > <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >   Current SVN has a bunch of blocker bugs,
> > > including broken support for
> > >  VMWare 5.0, big networking bugs and object leaks. 
> >
> >
> >  I have to agree... this release won't look much better than 0.2.6 (a
> >  bit worse?) considering some of the regressions and blocker bugs. On
> >  the other hand, if we at least branch for 0.2.7 then we could
> >  hopefully prevent further regressions and save the fixes for the
> >  release branch without holding up new features.
> >
> >  Cheers
> >  Jason
> >  
>  Yes, please let's give it another month, usb is just right around
>  the corner okay?
>  James
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[K McI]

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

Robert Köpferl wrote:
>   neither flesh, fowl nor good red 
What's THAT supposed to mean?

Thanx

        -K
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCmNt57mze81O92HkRAq40AJ0RDPVQBFL0xsY/z+jzk7a/vLFTOACghuHE
> shY9csdoN9TGCpcyH2+3tFE=
> =n7Hu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert Köpferl]

maybe: Not even the one thing but not yet the other. So undefined inbetween

K McI wrote:
>   Robert Köpferl wrote:
>  
> >  >neither flesh, fowl nor good red 
>  
>  
>  What's THAT supposed to mean?
>  
>  Thanx
>  
>          -K 
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev