Re: New year wish: please make a stable branch

From: Mike Schrag (mschra..dimension.com)
Date: Fri Jan 06 2006 - 10:06:05 EST

  • Next message: Guido Neitzer: "Re: New year wish: please make a stable branch"

    If people are OK with 2.0.84 being the one, then we can definitely
    just make that the one.

    Also, I'm perfectly OK backing out the custom WTP plugin. It didn't
    really fix the problem entirely ANYWAY and it's always bugged me.
    That would at LEAST make us stock plugins (3.2M4 + WTP 1.0 + TPTP
    4.x). But I do agree that if we don't put our foot down on SOME
    version, we'll always be playing this game. You are correct that the
    issue came up months ago of stabilizing, but then we kept moving
    forward and it never really came up again.

    So is everyone OK with 2.0.84 being the next stable build?

    Also, what do people think about repointing the main wolips website
    to just be the wiki? Overall it's got the more correct info I think
    and it's definitely easier to keep up-to-date (though it's slightly
    out now as of the 3.2M4 changeover).

    And lastly, I'm just curious what people perceive as the worst bugs
    as of right now? My personal hit list (in no particular order):

    1) I have no idea how flattening works in the incremental builder --
    it always seems to put my web server resources one folder deeper than
    I expect
    2) cmd-o doesn't work -- this makes me want to kill myself :)
    3) building w/ full wod validation enabled gets SLOW (this is totally
    my fault ... we need to work on a caching layer for looking up
    related resources, or maybe Ulrich has one already and I just need to
    know how where it is)
    4) Sync editor w/ Package Explorer doesn't work
    5) Double clicking on an error in the Problems view doesn't
    immediately take you to the error. Double clicking a second time will.

    I think those are the ones that annoy me the most. Any other ones
    really get on peoples nerves so we can try to prioritize?

    By the way, if you are experience progressively degrading Eclipse
    performance on OS X, I opened a new bug about it at bugs.eclipse.org
    -- https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=122428 . Please
    post up there if it happens to you as well so they devs can get more
    info on the problem.

    ms

    On Jan 6, 2006, at 5:34 AM, mar..iffy-berlin.in-berlin.de wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > On Jan 5, 2006, at 4:25 PM, Anjo Krank wrote:
    >> while I would be the first one to welcome a stable release without
    >> a ton of beta dependencies, I'd guess that this won't happen. It's
    >> just too much work to downgrade the new features to 3.1 and with a
    >> few of them, this is not even possible.
    >> So the best bet is to wait out for 3.2 final and WTP final and
    >> then try to make a stable version.
    >
    > Yes, that would be nice. I just fear that this might not be done.
    > At least now we are in the same situation as half a year ago with
    > 3.1.1. At the point, Eclipse 3.1.0 was out, and 3.1.1 was still in
    > beta. The same day 3.1.1 was finally released, I installed the
    > latest WOLips and all its dependencies (which was 2.0.68 at the
    > time I think). And I hoped for a stable release of WOLips.
    >
    > And now we have lots of dependencies on 3.2beta, and a patched
    > plugin. And the hope, that once 3.2 is finally out and the wtp team
    > has incorporated our patches, that a stable version of WOLips will
    > finally be made? Maybe at that time everything depends on 3.3beta
    > of Eclipse? :)
    >
    >> Unless there is someone who volunteers to do all the backporting
    >> work...
    >
    > Well, there is no backporting required really. Just take the latest
    > release of WOLips which did not require 3.2M4 and no patched
    > plugins, make a branch on that and declare it stable. That can then
    > be published on the website, and if any major bugs pop up, they can
    > be fixed in the branch.
    >
    > On 5. Jan 2006, at 23:27 Uhr, Marc Respass wrote:
    >> I would vote for a simple official release more than final
    >> versions of all dependancies. Just make 2.0.0.86 an official
    >> release. I've been using it for while now with no problems. When I
    >> go to
    >> http://www.objectstyle.org/woproject
    >> I want to see version 2.0 and be able to download it without any
    >> trouble. Right now, it's difficult to find WOLips 2 and get it
    >> installed but it works great.
    >>
    >> Marc
    >
    > I second that! 2.0.86 works fine for me with Eclipse 3.1.1 and
    > MacOSX 10.4.3/WebObjects 5.3 resp. MacOSX 10.3.9/WebObjects 5.2.3.
    >
    > Marc
    > PS: At the very least, please make a link from the homepage to the
    > wiki.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Jan 06 2006 - 10:07:48 EST