Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Production 5.6 release next week

Expand Messages
  • merton_monk
    ... betas ... use ... on ... I think you d be surprised if you followed the stats on our downloads - the production releases far outpace the betas in terms of
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Hugh Foster <hugh@a...> wrote:
      > I agree with most of this, however point of order:
      >
      > > Most users download a production release, a smaller pool will
      > > download the betas, so the amount of feedback we get from the
      betas
      > > is somewhat lessened from what we get from production releases.
      >
      > From what I see on this list, I beg to differ; most people seem to
      use
      > the best (newest) they can get. I'm a bit conservative and even I'm
      on
      > 5.5.3.

      I think you'd be surprised if you followed the stats on our
      downloads - the production releases far outpace the betas in terms of
      downloads. This particular list will tend to focus on the betas,
      because people here are, more often than not, involved with bug
      hunting and/or offering suggestions for improvements, which means
      that this particular group is most interested in the latest and
      greatest.

      >
      > Will the CMP epic pack come out at the same time (and please other
      > peeps don't tell me to sod off and ask this on CMP's fora because I
      > have been, regularly, and no-one answers me anymore, not even to say
      > "um")!

      *putting CMP hat on*
      I'm not directly involved with the data, although I've sent an email
      to the parties who are responsible for the epic data so they can
      answer your question. I'll get you a definite response as quickly as
      I can (I'll be on the road shortly, so that may not be until next
      week).

      -Bryan

      >
      >
      > --
      >
      > Hugh Foster
      > hugh@a...
      > http://www.ace-dog.com
      > I like you, but I wouldn't want to see you working with subatomic
      particles.
      >
      >
      > 02/01/2004 8:33:07 PM
    • Frugal
      ... So does that mean we can put unstable code for 5.7 on the head branch at the moment?.. -- regards, Frugal -OS Chimp
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        <quote who="merton_monk">
        > All work for 5.6 is being done on a branch, so work being done on the
        > main line won't impact it (this helps greatly minimize the chance of
        > collateral damage).

        So does that mean we can put unstable code for 5.7 on the head branch at
        the moment?..

        --
        regards,
        Frugal
        -OS Chimp
      • Hugh Foster
        ... Cheers dude. :) -- Hugh Foster hugh@ace-dog.com http://www.ace-dog.com I like you, but I wouldn t want to see you working with subatomic particles.
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > *putting CMP hat on* I'm not directly involved with the data,
          > although I've sent an email to the parties who are responsible for
          > the epic data so they can answer your question. I'll get you a
          > definite response as quickly as I can (I'll be on the road shortly,
          > so that may not be until next week).

          Cheers dude. :)


          --

          Hugh Foster
          hugh@...
          http://www.ace-dog.com
          I like you, but I wouldn't want to see you working with subatomic particles.


          02/01/2004 10:12:27 PM
        • Barak
          Well, I think that whatever the problem is with psionic powers/spells not showing up for selection needs to be fixed before we release 5.6. That s a major
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 4, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, I think that whatever the problem is with psionic powers/spells not
            showing up for selection needs to be fixed before we release 5.6. That's a
            major breakage from 5.4 that's been about for a while now.

            I just built and tested (from the main branch)and it still doesn't work, so
            I doubt it will work in the 5.6 branch either...

            Barak
            ~PCGen BoD
            ~OS Silverback


            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: merton_monk [mailto:merton_monk@...]

            > I think you'd be surprised if you followed the stats on our
            > downloads - the production releases far outpace the betas in terms of
            > downloads. This particular list will tend to focus on the betas,
            > because people here are, more often than not, involved with bug
            > hunting and/or offering suggestions for improvements, which means
            > that this particular group is most interested in the latest and
            > greatest.
          • merton_monk
            ... powers/spells not ... That s a ... work, so ... Yup - this definitely needs to be fixed before 5.6 goes out the door. -Bryan ... terms of ... means
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, "Barak" <barak@v...> wrote:
              > Well, I think that whatever the problem is with psionic
              powers/spells not
              > showing up for selection needs to be fixed before we release 5.6.
              That's a
              > major breakage from 5.4 that's been about for a while now.
              >
              > I just built and tested (from the main branch)and it still doesn't
              work, so
              > I doubt it will work in the 5.6 branch either...

              Yup - this definitely needs to be fixed before 5.6 goes out the door.

              -Bryan

              >
              > Barak
              > ~PCGen BoD
              > ~OS Silverback
              >
              >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: merton_monk [mailto:merton_monk@y...]
              >
              > > I think you'd be surprised if you followed the stats on our
              > > downloads - the production releases far outpace the betas in
              terms of
              > > downloads. This particular list will tend to focus on the betas,
              > > because people here are, more often than not, involved with bug
              > > hunting and/or offering suggestions for improvements, which
              means
              > > that this particular group is most interested in the latest and
              > > greatest.
            • Ross
              ... There s a P9 bug at SF on this, #865506. I started looking into it but didn t get very far as my wife needed the PC to do actual work. :-( I posted what
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                > Yup - this definitely needs to be fixed before 5.6 goes out the door.
                >
                > -Bryan

                There's a P9 bug at SF on this, #865506. I started looking into it but didn't get very far as my wife needed the PC to do actual work. :-( I posted what I found to the bug -- someone who knows the spells better than I do should probably look at it.

                Ross
                GMGen Whatsit
              • Sigurdur H. Olafsson
                Regarding 5.6 Is it still on schedule for this week? I cannot see that any of the imperative RSRD data trackers have been closed as fixed. (We are talking 30+
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 7, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Regarding 5.6
                  Is it still on schedule for this week?
                  I cannot see that any of the imperative RSRD data trackers have been
                  closed as fixed. (We are talking 30+ Priority 9 trackers here)
                  Wouldn´t it be a good idea to release a beta this week, and push for
                  data fixes for next week?


                  --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, "merton_monk" <merton_monk@y...> wrote:
                  > --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Stewart Larsen <stl19847@y...> wrote:
                  > > Man, I was kinda hoping we could get some sort of "new feature
                  > > lockdown" and get the rsrd stuff completely correct completely
                  > correct
                  > > for a beta or two before we released the next production release.
                  > >
                  > > There are still a number of small bugs that are just annoying.
                  > Ihave
                  > > had to create templates and modify the LST files for every
                  > character my
                  > > fiance and I play, just to get their numbers correct. Improved
                  > grapple
                  > > was not implemented correctly (actually did nothing in the lst
                  > file).
                  > > Weapon finesse still didn't work in 5.5.5, etc...
                  > >
                  > > I think we should take some time to fix everything before we
                  release
                  > > another broken production release.
                  > >
                  > > Stew
                  >
                  > The RSRD issues are the main emphasis behind the working going into
                  > the 5.6 release. Most of the issues identified are data in nature,
                  > and Doug and his crew are hitting those. As additional RSRD issues
                  > come up, either code or data, we'll fold them in to patches for
                  5.6.
                  > All work for 5.6 is being done on a branch, so work being done on
                  the
                  > main line won't impact it (this helps greatly minimize the chance
                  of
                  > collateral damage). For any production release for something like
                  > PCGen that's a living evolving application there is always the
                  desire
                  > to 'wait just a little bit longer' to 'get things right'. However,
                  > for everyone the bar to determine what 'just right' is varies - so
                  > you could end up waiting a long long time. Open Source has a
                  > mantra 'release early, release often'. By getting a production
                  > release out as soon as it meets some internal sanity checks, we get
                  a
                  > much larger audience to download it. They give us feedback, and we
                  > go from there. Most users download a production release, a smaller
                  > pool will download the betas, so the amount of feedback we get from
                  > the betas is somewhat lessened from what we get from production
                  > releases. So our desire for feedback and getting a release out the
                  > door is tempered by wanting to make sure that we don't release
                  > something isn't ready for prime-time. Our egos are at stake as a
                  > team, so we don't want to release anything that will make you think
                  > we have no idea what we're doing. It's all about trade-offs. :)
                  >
                  > All that said, it sounds like the data team has the remaining RSRD
                  > issues well in hand, so I'm confident that 5.6 will be a milestone
                  in
                  > 3.5e support.
                  >
                  > -Bryan
                • merton_monk
                  ... been ... for ... We re discussing that - 5.6 looks like it will have to be delayed, probably until next week. I hadn t thought about releasing another
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 7, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, "Sigurdur H. Olafsson" <here@h...>
                    wrote:
                    > Regarding 5.6
                    > Is it still on schedule for this week?
                    > I cannot see that any of the imperative RSRD data trackers have
                    been
                    > closed as fixed. (We are talking 30+ Priority 9 trackers here)
                    > Wouldn´t it be a good idea to release a beta this week, and push
                    for
                    > data fixes for next week?

                    We're discussing that - 5.6 looks like it will have to be delayed,
                    probably until next week. I hadn't thought about releasing another
                    beta this week, but that's a good idea. The issue is that we now have
                    2 branches of code, one for the 5.6 release and one for what was
                    intended to be the 5.7.1 release. I could go ahead and release off
                    the 5.6 branch and call it 5.5.6, since it's all java 1.3. The other
                    branch may have java 1.4 code in it (I told the coders that they
                    could introduce 1.4 code in it if they so desired), though I don't
                    know that anyone has done that yet. I think releasing 5.5.6 off the
                    branch of what will become 5.6 makes the most sense.

                    -Bryan
                  • Ross M. Lodge
                    ... I ve always thought it would be a good idea to release a beta or two from the production branch as release candidates and let people report bugs on them.
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 7, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      merton_monk wrote:
                      > We're discussing that - 5.6 looks like it will have to be delayed,
                      > probably until next week. I hadn't thought about releasing another
                      > beta this week, but that's a good idea. The issue is that we now have
                      > 2 branches of code, one for the 5.6 release and one for what was
                      > intended to be the 5.7.1 release. I could go ahead and release off
                      > the 5.6 branch and call it 5.5.6, since it's all java 1.3. The other
                      > branch may have java 1.4 code in it (I told the coders that they
                      > could introduce 1.4 code in it if they so desired), though I don't
                      > know that anyone has done that yet. I think releasing 5.5.6 off the
                      > branch of what will become 5.6 makes the most sense.

                      I've always thought it would be a good idea to release a beta or two from
                      the production branch as "release candidates" and let people report bugs on
                      them. As it is, there's not really any way for anyone without CVS access to
                      get the production version as it currently stands and see if it works.

                      Ross
                    • merton_monk
                      ... another ... have ... off ... other ... the ... or two from ... bugs on ... access to ... works. Yeah - that makes sense. I think that s what I ll do. :)
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 7, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, "Ross M. Lodge" <ross.lodge@e...> wrote:
                        > merton_monk wrote:
                        > > We're discussing that - 5.6 looks like it will have to be delayed,
                        > > probably until next week. I hadn't thought about releasing
                        another
                        > > beta this week, but that's a good idea. The issue is that we now
                        have
                        > > 2 branches of code, one for the 5.6 release and one for what was
                        > > intended to be the 5.7.1 release. I could go ahead and release
                        off
                        > > the 5.6 branch and call it 5.5.6, since it's all java 1.3. The
                        other
                        > > branch may have java 1.4 code in it (I told the coders that they
                        > > could introduce 1.4 code in it if they so desired), though I don't
                        > > know that anyone has done that yet. I think releasing 5.5.6 off
                        the
                        > > branch of what will become 5.6 makes the most sense.
                        >
                        > I've always thought it would be a good idea to release a beta
                        or two from
                        > the production branch as "release candidates" and let people report
                        bugs on
                        > them. As it is, there's not really any way for anyone without CVS
                        access to
                        > get the production version as it currently stands and see if it
                        works.

                        Yeah - that makes sense. I think that's what I'll do. :)

                        -Bryan

                        >
                        > Ross
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.