Hi Robin, Marc & list,
I've just merged my revised version of the backwards compatibility code for old config files. Could you please test it a bit? It should work better than the old one.
About the RC1 releases: As nobody protested against it, we will also release 2.2.7 RC1 today, right? Marc, please send along a note via e-mail or icq (#56915822) when you're ready and I'll push up the version numbers and tag the files.
Regards,
Alexander
Rabus wrote:
Hi Robin, Marc & list,
About the RC1 releases: As nobody protested against it, we will also release 2.2.7 RC1 today, right? Marc, please send along a note via e-mail or icq (#56915822) when you're ready and I'll push up the version numbers and tag the files.
Alexander,
as I already said on the list when someone suggested 2.2.7, my time is limited and I prefer to focus on 2.3.0 (which I find stable enough), so I don't have time to release 2.2.7.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Delisle" Delislma@CollegeSherbrooke.qc.ca
Rabus wrote:
Hi Robin, Marc & list,
About the RC1 releases: As nobody protested against it, we will also
release
2.2.7 RC1 today, right? Marc, please send along a note via e-mail or icq (#56915822) when you're ready and I'll push up the version numbers and tag the files.
Alexander,
as I already said on the list when someone suggested 2.2.7, my time is limited and I prefer to focus on 2.3.0 (which I find stable enough), so I don't have time to release 2.2.7.
Hmm... I'd do it myself, but I can't use those .sh scripts because I'm only running and I have neither access to the document root of phpmyadmin.net nor to the files and new section of our SF poject page, do I?
If someone ran "create-release.sh 2.2.7-rc1 v2_2_7-branch" for me after I have incremented the version numbers and gave me the access I need, I'll do it myself.
Alexander
Rabus wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Delisle" Delislma@CollegeSherbrooke.qc.ca
Rabus wrote:
Hi Robin, Marc & list,
About the RC1 releases: As nobody protested against it, we will also
release
2.2.7 RC1 today, right? Marc, please send along a note via e-mail or icq (#56915822) when you're ready and I'll push up the version numbers and tag the files.
Alexander,
as I already said on the list when someone suggested 2.2.7, my time is limited and I prefer to focus on 2.3.0 (which I find stable enough), so I don't have time to release 2.2.7.
Hmm... I'd do it myself, but I can't use those .sh scripts because I'm only running and I have neither access to the document root of phpmyadmin.net nor to the files and new section of our SF poject page, do I?
If someone ran "create-release.sh 2.2.7-rc1 v2_2_7-branch" for me after I have incremented the version numbers and gave me the access I need, I'll do it myself.
Alexander
Alexander,
As I find 2.3.0-dev stable enough to be renamed 2.3.0-rc1 and released (with some minor things deactivated for now as I said previously), I don't think it's a good idea to release 2.2.7-rc1, because we are about to release 2.3.0-rc1 and I fear that 2.3.0-rc1 would not get the same kind of testing from users.
I also think about support forums, where it will be easier to support only one new version instead of 2 new versions.
Sorry if this bothers your agenda, or other developers' agenda who believed in the idea of 2.2.7.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Delisle" Delislma@CollegeSherbrooke.qc.ca
As I find 2.3.0-dev stable enough to be renamed 2.3.0-rc1 and released (with some minor things deactivated for now as I said previously), I don't think it's a good idea to release 2.2.7-rc1, because we are about to release 2.3.0-rc1 and I fear that 2.3.0-rc1 would not get the same kind of testing from users.
New features cause new bugs. We need a stable release as a backup, as a reference.
I also think about support forums, where it will be easier to support only one new version instead of 2 new versions.
Sorry if this bothers your agenda, or other developers' agenda who believed in the idea of 2.2.7.
It bothers me indeed. Let's have a compromise: If 2.2.7 contains bugs, these bugs have to appear in 2.3.0, too, because 2.2.7 is only a bugfix release for 2.2.6. I'll go on merging fixes into 2.2.7 and we release a 2.2.7-final without any RCs together with 2.3.0. Would that be OK for you?
Alexander
Rabus wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marc Delisle" Delislma@CollegeSherbrooke.qc.ca
As I find 2.3.0-dev stable enough to be renamed 2.3.0-rc1 and released (with some minor things deactivated for now as I said previously), I don't think it's a good idea to release 2.2.7-rc1, because we are about to release 2.3.0-rc1 and I fear that 2.3.0-rc1 would not get the same kind of testing from users.
New features cause new bugs. We need a stable release as a backup, as a reference.
I also think about support forums, where it will be easier to support only one new version instead of 2 new versions.
Sorry if this bothers your agenda, or other developers' agenda who believed in the idea of 2.2.7.
It bothers me indeed. Let's have a compromise: If 2.2.7 contains bugs, these bugs have to appear in 2.3.0, too, because 2.2.7 is only a bugfix release for 2.2.6. I'll go on merging fixes into 2.2.7 and we release a 2.2.7-final without any RCs together with 2.3.0. Would that be OK for you?
Alexander
Yes.
Rabus wrote:
Hi Robin, Marc & list,
I've just merged my revised version of the backwards compatibility code for old config files. Could you please test it a bit? It should work better than the old one.
Alexander,
after I fixed 3 parse errors, it looks ok and I can use a 2.2.6 config file, I did some tests (not extensive) and the previous functionnality of 2.2.6 seems intact.
thanks.
-
Marc Delisle -
Rabus