Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Bernd Kreuss
On 24.12.2010 10:50, Vincent Snijders wrote:

> Please test the Lazarus 0.9.29 snapshots for regressions compared with
> Lazarus 0.9.28.2; These Lazarus 0.9.29 snapshots can be considered
> release candidates for the upcoming Lazarus 0.9.30 release. Report
> issues in the bug tracker.

When the user visits the lazarus website and clicks on download he will
be directed to the sourceforge page and find the current stable versions
there).

How about putting a download of the latest release candidate build (if
available) right there next to the current stable release into the same
folder as soon as a new release branch exists?

- sourceforge
  + ...
  + ...
  - windows 32 bits
    - Lazarus 0.9.30.0-RC3
    - Lazarus 0.9.28.2
    + old releases
  + ...
  + ...

Or at least make them more prominent on the Snapshots page or even
create a separate page "Release candidates" or something like that in
the site navigation between "Download" and "Dayly Snapshots"?

Also the current terminology with "fixes" and cryptic hidden information
in the version numbers (even/odd) is extremely confusing, this could be
communicated much better with more "standard" terminology and the 0.9.30
RC should not be named 0.9.29 and RC should be labeled as such and not
"fixes" because "fixes" would imply maintenance of an already released
branch.

The version naming scheme and the entire snapshots page feels extremely
chaotic to every newcomer who cannot intuitively decode all the secret
hidden information.

Bernd

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Vincent Snijders
2011/2/12 Bernd Kreuss <[hidden email]>:

> On 24.12.2010 10:50, Vincent Snijders wrote:
>
>> Please test the Lazarus 0.9.29 snapshots for regressions compared with
>> Lazarus 0.9.28.2; These Lazarus 0.9.29 snapshots can be considered
>> release candidates for the upcoming Lazarus 0.9.30 release. Report
>> issues in the bug tracker.
>
> When the user visits the lazarus website and clicks on download he will
> be directed to the sourceforge page and find the current stable versions
> there).
>
> How about putting a download of the latest release candidate build (if
> available) right there next to the current stable release into the same
> folder as soon as a new release branch exists?
>
> - sourceforge
>  + ...
>  + ...
>  - windows 32 bits
>    - Lazarus 0.9.30.0-RC3
>    - Lazarus 0.9.28.2
>    + old releases
>  + ...
>  + ...
>
> Or at least make them more prominent on the Snapshots page or even
> create a separate page "Release candidates" or something like that in
> the site navigation between "Download" and "Dayly Snapshots"?
>

Those are good ideas.

> Also the current terminology with "fixes" and cryptic hidden information
> in the version numbers (even/odd) is extremely confusing, this could be
> communicated much better with more "standard" terminology and the 0.9.30
> RC should not be named 0.9.29 and RC should be labeled as such and not
> "fixes" because "fixes" would imply maintenance of an already released
> branch.

This may be a good idea, if somebody is willing to spent time on
creating separate builds, As it is now, 0.9.29 snapshots are built
automatically costing me no time. If you want to label them
differently, then they will need to build separately. I don't have
time for that.

Vincent

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

John Stoneham
In reply to this post by Bernd Kreuss
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Bernd Kreuss <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
communicated much better with more "standard" terminology and the 0.9.30
RC should not be named 0.9.29 and RC should be labeled as such and not
"fixes" because "fixes" would imply maintenance of an already released
branch.


This is the second time the above has been mentioned, so let me make it a third. I realize there is a lot of work to do and few people doing it, so maybe this would be really low down on priorities. But when we're building 0.9.30 from svn, and then the fixes branch is forked and supposed to continue and stabilize upon it, it's just downright confusing for it to suddenly change to 0.9.29 in our builds. So the fixes branch is really an RC branch, right? Why not have the version numbering in the fixes branch be 0.9.30RC rxxxxx, even 0.9.30f rxxxxx ("f" for "fixes")? At least it would limit some of the confusion over which is which.

--
John

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Vincent Snijders
2011/2/12 John Stoneham <[hidden email]>:

> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Bernd Kreuss <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> communicated much better with more "standard" terminology and the 0.9.30
>> RC should not be named 0.9.29 and RC should be labeled as such and not
>> "fixes" because "fixes" would imply maintenance of an already released
>> branch.
>>
>
> This is the second time the above has been mentioned, so let me make it a
> third. I realize there is a lot of work to do and few people doing it, so
> maybe this would be really low down on priorities. But when we're building
> 0.9.30 from svn, and then the fixes branch is forked and supposed to
> continue and stabilize upon it, it's just downright confusing for it to
> suddenly change to 0.9.29 in our builds. So the fixes branch is really an RC
> branch, right? Why not have the version numbering in the fixes branch be
> 0.9.30RC rxxxxx, even 0.9.30f rxxxxx ("f" for "fixes")? At least it would
> limit some of the confusion over which is which.

It is only a RC branch until the release after that is a fixes branch.
Maybe it would confuse people less, if it the branch is renamed, but I
doubt that.

Vincent

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Bernd Kreuss
In reply to this post by Vincent Snijders
On 12.02.2011 16:11, Vincent Snijders wrote:
>> Or at least make them more prominent on the Snapshots page or even
>> create a separate page "Release candidates" or something like that in
>> the site navigation between "Download" and "Dayly Snapshots"?
>>
>
> Those are good ideas.

Also maybe instead of the new website (which has been suggested many
times and still won't come because the goal was set too high) maybe the
existing portal software could be used to transport essential information.

I'm sure there is a way to use this forum software to make a sticky
topic or frontpage info box that contains all the most important
information that a user expects when he visits the website for the first
time (namely where to download Lazarus) in some simple textual form (no
complicated web design needed):

Lazarus - IDE and GUI framework for the Free Pascal programming language

* The current stable release of Lazaus is 0.9.28.2, you can download it
here: [link]

* Release candidates for the new upcoming release are 0.9.29-x, please
test them and report bugs, you can download them here: [link]

* Daily snapshots of the trunk are 0.9.31-x, they are only recommended
for experimenting with the very latest bleeding edge features, not yet
recommended for productive use. You can find them here: [link]

This can be expanded with one or two sentences explaining the version
numbering in general and what is contained in the downloads and what to
expect after installation and where to continue reading for more
information, maybe a few links pointing to some relevant wiki pages,
just enough text to fill the entire front page with the most relevant
information for quick overview and to move the irrelevant twitter links
and the forum posts to the bottom and out of sight. Maybe this "Info"
box that is already there and only contains two links could be used for
this.

Bernd

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Mark Morgan Lloyd
Bernd Kreuss wrote:

> * The current stable release of Lazaus is 0.9.28.2, you can download it
> here: [link]
>
> * Release candidates for the new upcoming release are 0.9.29-x, please
> test them and report bugs, you can download them here: [link]
>
> * Daily snapshots of the trunk are 0.9.31-x, they are only recommended
> for experimenting with the very latest bleeding edge features, not yet
> recommended for productive use. You can find them here: [link]

Plus the minimum and recommended version of FPC for each, please.

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Lukasz Sokol
In reply to this post by Vincent Snijders
On 12/02/2011 16:13, Vincent Snijders wrote:

> It is only a RC branch until the release after that is a fixes branch.
> Maybe it would confuse people less, if it the branch is renamed, but I
> doubt that.
>
> Vincent
>

Yes it will confuse people less : look at Linux case - they have longterm, stable, rcX and
'bleeding-edge' or 'developer' branches reflected in names of releases...
But this also comes with a policy what kind of patch is accepted into which release,
and it is being, surprisingly, observed (surprisingly given the size and pace of development).

Lukasz



--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Vincent Snijders
2011/2/16 Lukasz Sokol <[hidden email]>:

> On 12/02/2011 16:13, Vincent Snijders wrote:
>
>> It is only a RC branch until the release after that is a fixes branch.
>> Maybe it would confuse people less, if it the branch is renamed, but I
>> doubt that.
>>
>> Vincent
>>
>
> Yes it will confuse people less : look at Linux case - they have longterm, stable, rcX and
> 'bleeding-edge' or 'developer' branches reflected in names of releases...
> But this also comes with a policy what kind of patch is accepted into which release,
> and it is being, surprisingly, observed (surprisingly given the size and pace of development).

Do they rename branches after a release? Or do they create just
another branch after a release, which means I will have to update the
build scripts or change branches to track on all the build servers?

Vincent

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Lukasz Sokol
On 16/02/2011 10:44, Vincent Snijders wrote:

>> Yes it will confuse people less : look at Linux case - they have longterm, stable, rcX and
>> 'bleeding-edge' or 'developer' branches reflected in names of releases...
>> But this also comes with a policy what kind of patch is accepted into which release,
>> and it is being, surprisingly, observed (surprisingly given the size and pace of development).
>
> Do they rename branches after a release? Or do they create just
> another branch after a release, which means I will have to update the
> build scripts or change branches to track on all the build servers?
>
> Vincent

I guess whatever floats _your_ boat and gives the outcome people expect will do ;)

(googled)
Oh, on http://linux.yyz.us/git-howto.html you can find this phrase:
"The Linux kernel uses tags to for each kernel version [...]"

So I guess they branch out for the development/bleeding edge branches, then merge back to
head [trunk] and tag it.
And the stable patches get commited into tagged releases for which they are destined
(they do it by sending to the main head but also cc: stable IIUC)

I can't google more this time unfortunately, but it should be fairly easy to find.

Like I said - it is the outcome and whatever floats _your_ boat better, really.

Lukasz


--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

John Stoneham
Can you clear this up for me?

Here's the way I understand it.
- Even numbers are reserved for stable releases: 0.9.28.2 is the current stable release.
- Odd numbers are used for the development branch: 0.9.31 is the current svn development branch. (Why isn't it 0.9.29 then?)
- Fixes branch is for locking features and fixing bugs before a stable release, basically the RC branch. So fixes_0.9.30 is... wait, on the snapshots page it says fixes_0.9.29. What happened to fixes_0.9.30?

So 0.9.31 in svn is what will eventually become the 0.9.32 stable release, right? That means it contains things that are being developed beyond (and will not be in) 0.9.30. And fixes_0.9.29 is what will be 0.9.30 stable, correct? But at some point a few weeks ago (I assume before the fixes branch was created) the svn branch was 0.9.30, wasn't it? And didn't this thread start out calling the fixes branch fixes_0.9.30? 

I don't know, I'm still confused. I guess the way I would do it, so that it made sense to me, is to always have what will be the next stable release as trunk. So trunk would now be numbered 0.9.29. And have a branch numbered 0.9.31 for the development version containing things that are being worked on for a still future release. So when 0.9.30 is released, the branch numbered 0.9.31 would then become trunk. When it gets close to the time to release 0.9.32, branch off a development 0.9.33. And so on.

But that's just the way my mind works, which means it would make sense to me but maybe not to someone else.

I think as long as there's a clear indication in the wiki about what the numbering system means, then that should be sufficient.

--
John

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Sven Barth
Am 16.02.2011 15:46, schrieb John Stoneham:
> Can you clear this up for me?
>
> Here's the way I understand it.
> - Even numbers are reserved for stable releases: 0.9.28.2 is the current
> stable release.
> - Odd numbers are used for the development branch: 0.9.31 is the current
> svn development branch. (Why isn't it 0.9.29 then?)

It was 0.9.29, but after the branch of the fixes_0.9.30 branch the new
development version got the version 0.9.31.

> - Fixes branch is for locking features and fixing bugs before a stable
> release, basically the RC branch. So fixes_0.9.30 is... wait, on the
> snapshots page it says fixes_0.9.29. What happened to fixes_0.9.30?
>

The snapshots are still compiled as 0.9.29, but they are from the
fixes_0.9.30 branch (version of the branch and version of the
application must not be the same).

> So 0.9.31 in svn is what will eventually become the 0.9.32 stable
> release, right? That means it contains things that are being developed
> beyond (and will not be in) 0.9.30. And fixes_0.9.29 is what will be
> 0.9.30 stable, correct? But at some point a few weeks ago (I assume
> before the fixes branch was created) the svn branch was 0.9.30, wasn't
> it? And didn't this thread start out calling the fixes branch fixes_0.9.30?
>

The SVN structure is this:

|-\
| |_ fixes_0.9.28
|
|-\
| |_ fixes_0.9.30
|
trunk (aka 0.9.31)

The snapshot structure is this:
Lazarus 0.9.29 (aka 0.9.30, currently prepared for release)
Lazarus 0.9.31 (the current development version)

> I don't know, I'm still confused. I guess the way I would do it, so that
> it made sense to me, is to always have what will be the next stable
> release as trunk. So trunk would now be numbered 0.9.29. And have a
> branch numbered 0.9.31 for the development version containing things
> that are being worked on for a still future release. So when 0.9.30 is
> released, the branch numbered 0.9.31 would then become trunk. When it
> gets close to the time to release 0.9.32, branch off a development
> 0.9.33. And so on.
>

trunk is always the main development version. All experimental features
go in there. Then from time to time a release is branched from that
trunk and stabilized.

Regards,
Sven

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Vincent Snijders
In reply to this post by John Stoneham
2011/2/16 John Stoneham <[hidden email]>:
> Can you clear this up for me?
> Here's the way I understand it.
> - Even numbers are reserved for stable releases: 0.9.28.2 is the current
> stable release.
Even last numbers are meant for releases. Those don't change.
> - Odd numbers are used for the development branch: 0.9.31 is the current svn
> development branch. (Why isn't it 0.9.29 then?)
Odd even last number means development version, i.e. there is not one
set of file that can be labeled 0.9.29 or 0.9.31. 0.9.29 is a
development version too.

> - Fixes branch is for locking features and fixing bugs before a stable
> release, basically the RC branch. So fixes_0.9.30 is... wait, on the
> snapshots page it says fixes_0.9.29. What happened to fixes_0.9.30?

It says fixes branch that currently contains 0.9.29. The actual name
of the branch is fixes_0_9_30, because after the release of 0.9.30
from this branch, it will contain fixes for the 0.9.30 release.

> So 0.9.31 in svn is what will eventually become the 0.9.32 stable release,
> right? That means it contains things that are being developed beyond (and
> will not be in) 0.9.30. And fixes_0.9.29 is what will be 0.9.30 stable,

fixes_0_9_30.

> correct? But at some point a few weeks ago (I assume before the fixes branch
> was created) the svn branch was 0.9.30, wasn't it? And didn't this thread

what svn branch? Anyway, no branch will contain 0.9.30.

> start out calling the fixes branch fixes_0.9.30?

I cannot remember that.

> I think as long as there's a clear indication in the wiki about what the
> numbering system means, then that should be sufficient.

I guess that is what this page is about:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering

This page may help too:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Development_Process#Lazarus_branches_.2F_version_numbers_around_1.0

Vincent

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Graeme Geldenhuys
Op 2011-02-16 21:27, Vincent Snijders het geskryf:
>
> I guess that is what this page is about:
> http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering

I've updated the graph and some other text to reflect the latest state
of the SubVersion repository.




Regards,
  - Graeme -

--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/


--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] Test the Lazarus fixes_0_9_30 branch

Vincent Snijders
2011/2/17 Graeme Geldenhuys <[hidden email]>:
> Op 2011-02-16 21:27, Vincent Snijders het geskryf:
>>
>> I guess that is what this page is about:
>> http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Version_Numbering
>
> I've updated the graph and some other text to reflect the latest state
> of the SubVersion repository.
>

Looks good. Thank you.

Vincent

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus