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

Re: [pcgen] Re: Production 5.6 release next week

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.