Re: 1.5.6 Release Needs More Eyes

From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: 1.5.6 Release Needs More Eyes
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:40:22 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <873cyya6hl.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87sn6yrco3.fsf@gaff.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> (Evan Prodromou's message of "Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:34:52 -0800")

Evan Prodromou <evan@glug.org> writes:

> I just did a release notification on Freshmeat for 1.5.6, but this
> should probably be a standard part of making new releases, no?

Sounds like a good idea.

I also agree that we could use some more centralized information.  For
example, it would be nice if we could provide inter-release info
somewhere -- right now 1.5.6 is broken wrt threads, but I'm waiting
for the snarfing updates before releasing a new version.

I suppose with some conventions we could handle this with the BUGS
file -- if the bug could be listed in the 1.6 CVS BUGS file but be
marked as fixed, then the BUGS processing script could list it on the
web page as "fixed - pending release" or similar.  That would be quite
handy.

I'd also wondered if we might want to talk about trying out one of the
bug-tracking systems with guile -- for example, I've had a little
experience with bugzilla lately and it seems pretty interesting.  Not
the most polished user-interface, but quite flexible -- though IMO it
really needs an email interface, perhaps one that (unlike Debian's)
requires some kind of special format for submissions (spammers have
started hitting the bug tracker NNNN@bugs.debian.org addresses lately
:<).

I'm also happy if we'd just like to work with the BUGS files and see
how that works out.  The BUGS files are certainly convenient to edit;
although having separate files for each tree means there's potential
for skew, and it's a bit harder to maintain information for a bug that
applies to both trees.

(If we had enough time to work on it, I think it'd be nice to have all
 the bugs in a postgres DB with both an email interface (via GPG
 signed messages), and an SSL web interface.  Then we could have all
 the per-release severity levels, status flags, summary lists,
 etc. that we could ever want, and we could probably do all the coding
 from guile via guile-pg or similar.)

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD

_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel