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.
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
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.
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
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@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@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
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
On 5/28/05, Alex Ionescu ionucu@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
Jason Filby wrote:
On 5/28/05, Alex Ionescu ionucu@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
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@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@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Robert Köpferl wrote:
neither flesh, fowl nor good red
What's THAT supposed to mean?
Thanx
-K
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@reactos.com http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev