[cvsnt] CVSNT Release plans/TT issues, etc. (was: update -A no longer resets sticky tag on modified files)
ogware at gmx.net
Tue Jun 14 14:08:38 BST 2005
Tony Hoyle wrote:
> > Are there any predictions yet on when you're going to label the
> > current 2.5.01.x releases "stable"?
> A lot of stuff in there is really 2.5.02 development that I'm leaving
> out of the unstable tree for now... I wasn't really planning on
> another 2.5.01 unless there's something major crops up.
Hmm, I was already wondering why you started adding new features to
2.5.01.x again... that explains it then, I guess.
OK, so then 2.5.01.1976 is the latest (and last) stable release from
the 2.5.01.x line, right? (If so, Bo, shouldn't you make the Inno
installer for that build available again?)
Where can I find a list of the known issues in that release? It's
currently rather hard to get this kind of information out of the TT in
a concise form as the "Affected" and "Fixed in" columns are not
displayed in the search results (furthermore if you filter by
"Affected" you couldn't sort by "Fixed in" without also setting a
filter on "Status") and you couldn't just search for "affects
2.5.01.1976" as the tickets contain no information about when (i.e. in
what release) the issue started to appear (or rather: against which
release it was first reported).
Am I also right to assume that upgrading the server to CVSNT 2.5.02.x
will eventually be a one-way street even if I don't make explicit use
of new features, what with the supposedly new backend and all that?
Please don't misunderstand me: I would like to see a SQL-based CVSNT
server yesterday rather than tomorrow but OTOH this still seems a
rather fundamental change so that there's probably no way I will be
able to install this on our production server before it hasn't had at
least half a year to mature in the wild.
That's why I'm really eager to have a 2.5.01.x release with a managable
number of known issues until then as that's what I will be stuck with
as it is...
> Before a release I also need to get the unverifed bugs verified.. I
> had a volunteer to do that but it never really happened (can't do it
> myself as it would defeat the point of the verification).
Fair enough, I'll let you know if I should get round to verifying some
of these. Pretty much depends on the quality/clarity of the ticket
descriptions though... e.g. I wouldn't know how to verify an issue
described to happen "under some conditions"...
JID: ogiesen at jabber.org
ICQ: 18777742 (http://wwp.icq.com/18777742)
More information about the cvsnt