Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
32 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Paul Franklin-5
On 4/2/14, Benny Malengier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It was a big change to do in branches that normally only see bug fixes. I
> assume this is mostly because we have not talked about a 4.1 one yet. It
> should seem clear I'm not in the possibility to handle a 4.1 push, as I did
> for the previous spring-early summer releases in the last years.
>
> Is there somebody else who wants to do this this year? It involves a lot of
> testing and some extra eye for quality assurance.

I will repeat again my opinion that we shouldn't release
4.1 until 4.0.x has been in use by Windows users for
a long time, almost a year -- as would normally be true.

That hasn't been the case and bugs about 4.0.x are
still coming in, including lots of GUI-related and DB-
related bugs -- which are beyond the ability of many
people to investigate and fix.

I don't see any strong reason to push 4.1 out the
door when we are still in the early life of all the big
changes which appeared in 4.0.0.  For instance
there are very few users who are using 4.0.x under
Python3 and so I suspect there are still lots of bugs
lurking there.  I also am guessing that very few of
the developers are using a "new" Gtk (e.g. 3.10.x),
and if they were I would guess that more such bugs
would be being noticed, and fixed.

We don't have a lot of developers who are active at
the moment and in my opinion this is the wrong time
to be making any major change -- like releasing 4.1.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Benny Malengier



2014-04-03 0:45 GMT+02:00 Paul Franklin <[hidden email]>:
On 4/2/14, Benny Malengier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It was a big change to do in branches that normally only see bug fixes. I
> assume this is mostly because we have not talked about a 4.1 one yet. It
> should seem clear I'm not in the possibility to handle a 4.1 push, as I did
> for the previous spring-early summer releases in the last years.
>
> Is there somebody else who wants to do this this year? It involves a lot of
> testing and some extra eye for quality assurance.

I will repeat again my opinion that we shouldn't release
4.1 until 4.0.x has been in use by Windows users for
a long time, almost a year -- as would normally be true.

That hasn't been the case and bugs about 4.0.x are
still coming in, including lots of GUI-related and DB-
related bugs -- which are beyond the ability of many
people to investigate and fix.

I don't see any strong reason to push 4.1 out the
door when we are still in the early life of all the big
changes which appeared in 4.0.0.  For instance
there are very few users who are using 4.0.x under
Python3 and so I suspect there are still lots of bugs
lurking there.  I also am guessing that very few of
the developers are using a "new" Gtk (e.g. 3.10.x),
and if they were I would guess that more such bugs
would be being noticed, and fixed.

We don't have a lot of developers who are active at
the moment and in my opinion this is the wrong time
to be making any major change -- like releasing 4.1.0

All correct. On the other hand, bit-rot can be a problem if we wait too long. It is April and nobody really asked for a 4.1. So I can live with officially postponing to an October release data. Like that we all know the schedule and can work towards that.

I would not do it later. After all, we also don't want developers doing major changes in released branches because they don't trust that their improvements trickle through in a timely manner to the users if working in master. That is bad for stability, see the 2.2 series in the past.

So, others agree to this schedule? Even if so, one of the main developers should step forward to handle it. As my evidence work will probably not land in 4.1 (or are you continuing on it Tim?), I don't have much code of myself in master.

Benny
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Paul Franklin-5
On 4/3/14, Benny Malengier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2014-04-03 0:45 GMT+02:00 Paul Franklin <[hidden email]>:
>
>> On 4/2/14, Benny Malengier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > It was a big change to do in branches that normally only see bug fixes.
>> > I
>> > assume this is mostly because we have not talked about a 4.1 one yet.
>> > It
>> > should seem clear I'm not in the possibility to handle a 4.1 push, as I
>> did
>> > for the previous spring-early summer releases in the last years.
>> >
>> > Is there somebody else who wants to do this this year? It involves a
>> > lot
>> of
>> > testing and some extra eye for quality assurance.
>>
>> I will repeat again my opinion that we shouldn't release
>> 4.1 until 4.0.x has been in use by Windows users for
>> a long time, almost a year -- as would normally be true.
>>
>> That hasn't been the case and bugs about 4.0.x are
>> still coming in, including lots of GUI-related and DB-
>> related bugs -- which are beyond the ability of many
>> people to investigate and fix.
>>
>> I don't see any strong reason to push 4.1 out the
>> door when we are still in the early life of all the big
>> changes which appeared in 4.0.0.  For instance
>> there are very few users who are using 4.0.x under
>> Python3 and so I suspect there are still lots of bugs
>> lurking there.  I also am guessing that very few of
>> the developers are using a "new" Gtk (e.g. 3.10.x),
>> and if they were I would guess that more such bugs
>> would be being noticed, and fixed.
>>
>> We don't have a lot of developers who are active at
>> the moment and in my opinion this is the wrong time
>> to be making any major change -- like releasing 4.1.0
>>
>
> All correct. On the other hand, bit-rot can be a problem if we wait too
> long. It is April and nobody really asked for a 4.1. So I can live with
> officially postponing to an October release data. Like that we all know the
> schedule and can work towards that.
>
> I would not do it later. After all, we also don't want developers doing
> major changes in released branches because they don't trust that their
> improvements trickle through in a timely manner to the users if working in
> master. That is bad for stability, see the 2.2 series in the past.
>
> So, others agree to this schedule? Even if so, one of the main developers
> should step forward to handle it. As my evidence work will probably not
> land in 4.1 (or are you continuing on it Tim?), I don't have much code of
> myself in master.
>
> Benny

Let's be specific.  Are you saying that the 3.4.x series
will stop being maintained in October?  If so, I am very
against any October release of 4.1.0.

I would also offer the opinion (not that I claim to be
an expert) that very few "major changes" have been
put into trunk/master since the gramps40 branch
was forked off of it.  Much of the work in the last
year has been spent in fixing gramps40, and so
any fixes have been going into it (and master).  I
think that's where our efforts should continue to
be pointed.  (Although I am well aware that it is
much more fun to code new things from scratch,
rather than to fix bugs, especially in strange code.)

For instance, I didn't mention in it my reply and
you and many others may not be aware of it, but
John and Josip (and others) have been working
for some /weeks/ now trying to fix the Windows
version of 4.0.x, so it works in multiple locales,
and (to the best of my knowledge) it is not done
yet.  I couldn't do it and I /highly/ applaud their
efforts but my point is that 4.0.4 is waiting for
it, and thus only 4.0.4 is likely to be a Windows
release we can be proud of.

So only now, in April, will a Windows version of
gramps be going out which is likely to not be
producing so many strange "can't decode" bugs.
And only now, with the release of Ubuntu 14.04,
will a 4.0.x gramps be in Ubuntu, and thus all
its derivatives.  (It only went into the Fedora I
use in December.)

So I repeat again that now, a year after 4.0.0
was released, is the only time when a lot of
our users are likely to start using it greatly.

So I think we should let them, and not force
them into a new gramps, with perhaps only
marginal improvements.  Note also that the
14.04 Ubuntu will be a LTS release, so some
users will want the 4.0.x series supported for
some years.

I will still say that with the combined Gtk3 and
Python3 changes in 4.0.0, it wasn't a "regular"
release and so we shouldn't blindly continue on
a "regular" release schedule.

Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Benny Malengier
Paul,

4.1 has database changes. If it is released in september/oktober, it will only be in distributions of spring 2015.
I see 4.1 as an evolution of 4.0. It's release means 4.0 will be supported for max another year. 3.4 is another story, it could be supported longer still. We are end 2015 then already.

I am not involved in the changes in 4.1, but I know that developers who do big changes like db changes, and then must wait more than a year to see a release, become demotivated. Althought the users are important, Gramps lives on by virtue of motivated devolopers.

Benny


2014-04-03 17:38 GMT+02:00 Paul Franklin <[hidden email]>:
On 4/3/14, Benny Malengier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2014-04-03 0:45 GMT+02:00 Paul Franklin <[hidden email]>:
>
>> On 4/2/14, Benny Malengier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > It was a big change to do in branches that normally only see bug fixes.
>> > I
>> > assume this is mostly because we have not talked about a 4.1 one yet.
>> > It
>> > should seem clear I'm not in the possibility to handle a 4.1 push, as I
>> did
>> > for the previous spring-early summer releases in the last years.
>> >
>> > Is there somebody else who wants to do this this year? It involves a
>> > lot
>> of
>> > testing and some extra eye for quality assurance.
>>
>> I will repeat again my opinion that we shouldn't release
>> 4.1 until 4.0.x has been in use by Windows users for
>> a long time, almost a year -- as would normally be true.
>>
>> That hasn't been the case and bugs about 4.0.x are
>> still coming in, including lots of GUI-related and DB-
>> related bugs -- which are beyond the ability of many
>> people to investigate and fix.
>>
>> I don't see any strong reason to push 4.1 out the
>> door when we are still in the early life of all the big
>> changes which appeared in 4.0.0.  For instance
>> there are very few users who are using 4.0.x under
>> Python3 and so I suspect there are still lots of bugs
>> lurking there.  I also am guessing that very few of
>> the developers are using a "new" Gtk (e.g. 3.10.x),
>> and if they were I would guess that more such bugs
>> would be being noticed, and fixed.
>>
>> We don't have a lot of developers who are active at
>> the moment and in my opinion this is the wrong time
>> to be making any major change -- like releasing 4.1.0
>>
>
> All correct. On the other hand, bit-rot can be a problem if we wait too
> long. It is April and nobody really asked for a 4.1. So I can live with
> officially postponing to an October release data. Like that we all know the
> schedule and can work towards that.
>
> I would not do it later. After all, we also don't want developers doing
> major changes in released branches because they don't trust that their
> improvements trickle through in a timely manner to the users if working in
> master. That is bad for stability, see the 2.2 series in the past.
>
> So, others agree to this schedule? Even if so, one of the main developers
> should step forward to handle it. As my evidence work will probably not
> land in 4.1 (or are you continuing on it Tim?), I don't have much code of
> myself in master.
>
> Benny

Let's be specific.  Are you saying that the 3.4.x series
will stop being maintained in October?  If so, I am very
against any October release of 4.1.0.

I would also offer the opinion (not that I claim to be
an expert) that very few "major changes" have been
put into trunk/master since the gramps40 branch
was forked off of it.  Much of the work in the last
year has been spent in fixing gramps40, and so
any fixes have been going into it (and master).  I
think that's where our efforts should continue to
be pointed.  (Although I am well aware that it is
much more fun to code new things from scratch,
rather than to fix bugs, especially in strange code.)

For instance, I didn't mention in it my reply and
you and many others may not be aware of it, but
John and Josip (and others) have been working
for some /weeks/ now trying to fix the Windows
version of 4.0.x, so it works in multiple locales,
and (to the best of my knowledge) it is not done
yet.  I couldn't do it and I /highly/ applaud their
efforts but my point is that 4.0.4 is waiting for
it, and thus only 4.0.4 is likely to be a Windows
release we can be proud of.

So only now, in April, will a Windows version of
gramps be going out which is likely to not be
producing so many strange "can't decode" bugs.
And only now, with the release of Ubuntu 14.04,
will a 4.0.x gramps be in Ubuntu, and thus all
its derivatives.  (It only went into the Fedora I
use in December.)

So I repeat again that now, a year after 4.0.0
was released, is the only time when a lot of
our users are likely to start using it greatly.

So I think we should let them, and not force
them into a new gramps, with perhaps only
marginal improvements.  Note also that the
14.04 Ubuntu will be a LTS release, so some
users will want the 4.0.x series supported for
some years.

I will still say that with the combined Gtk3 and
Python3 changes in 4.0.0, it wasn't a "regular"
release and so we shouldn't blindly continue on
a "regular" release schedule.

Thanks.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Nick Hall-6
In reply to this post by Benny Malengier
On 03/04/14 09:17, Benny Malengier wrote:

> All correct. On the other hand, bit-rot can be a problem if we wait
> too long. It is April and nobody really asked for a 4.1. So I can live
> with officially postponing to an October release data. Like that we
> all know the schedule and can work towards that.
>
> I would not do it later. After all, we also don't want developers
> doing major changes in released branches because they don't trust that
> their improvements trickle through in a timely manner to the users if
> working in master. That is bad for stability, see the 2.2 series in
> the past.
>
> So, others agree to this schedule? Even if so, one of the main
> developers should step forward to handle it. As my evidence work will
> probably not land in 4.1 (or are you continuing on it Tim?), I don't
> have much code of myself in master.
>

Benny,

The biggest change in v4.1 is the introduction of hierarchical places.  
The other database changes are the new source attributes and tagging for
all primary objects.

Many of the other changes have already been back-ported to v4.0 and v3.4.

If there are no more features to be added to v4.1, I would like to see a
release in a few months.  How about 1 July 2014?

As the main changes were written by me, I am happy to manage the release.

Regards,

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Benny Malengier



2014-04-04 15:00 GMT+02:00 Nick Hall <[hidden email]>:
On 03/04/14 09:17, Benny Malengier wrote:
> All correct. On the other hand, bit-rot can be a problem if we wait
> too long. It is April and nobody really asked for a 4.1. So I can live
> with officially postponing to an October release data. Like that we
> all know the schedule and can work towards that.
>
> I would not do it later. After all, we also don't want developers
> doing major changes in released branches because they don't trust that
> their improvements trickle through in a timely manner to the users if
> working in master. That is bad for stability, see the 2.2 series in
> the past.
>
> So, others agree to this schedule? Even if so, one of the main
> developers should step forward to handle it. As my evidence work will
> probably not land in 4.1 (or are you continuing on it Tim?), I don't
> have much code of myself in master.
>

Benny,

The biggest change in v4.1 is the introduction of hierarchical places.
The other database changes are the new source attributes and tagging for
all primary objects.

Many of the other changes have already been back-ported to v4.0 and v3.4.

If there are no more features to be added to v4.1, I would like to see a
release in a few months.  How about 1 July 2014?

As the main changes were written by me, I am happy to manage the release.

Great! That is agreed then.

Helge will not be happy with 1 July. If we see this as the evolution of 4.0, and keep maintaining 3.4 as we have been doing the last year, I agree that 1 July is good.  4.1 replaces 4.0, on a steady yearly cycle as we have been able to do the last years.

Let's see if others than Helge disagree.

Benny
 

Regards,

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

John Ralls-2

On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Benny Malengier <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> 2014-04-04 15:00 GMT+02:00 Nick Hall <[hidden email]>:
> On 03/04/14 09:17, Benny Malengier wrote:
> > All correct. On the other hand, bit-rot can be a problem if we wait
> > too long. It is April and nobody really asked for a 4.1. So I can live
> > with officially postponing to an October release data. Like that we
> > all know the schedule and can work towards that.
> >
> > I would not do it later. After all, we also don't want developers
> > doing major changes in released branches because they don't trust that
> > their improvements trickle through in a timely manner to the users if
> > working in master. That is bad for stability, see the 2.2 series in
> > the past.
> >
> > So, others agree to this schedule? Even if so, one of the main
> > developers should step forward to handle it. As my evidence work will
> > probably not land in 4.1 (or are you continuing on it Tim?), I don't
> > have much code of myself in master.
> >
>
> Benny,
>
> The biggest change in v4.1 is the introduction of hierarchical places.
> The other database changes are the new source attributes and tagging for
> all primary objects.
>
> Many of the other changes have already been back-ported to v4.0 and v3.4.
>
> If there are no more features to be added to v4.1, I would like to see a
> release in a few months.  How about 1 July 2014?
>
> As the main changes were written by me, I am happy to manage the release.
>
> Great! That is agreed then.
>
> Helge will not be happy with 1 July. If we see this as the evolution of 4.0, and keep maintaining 3.4 as we have been doing the last year, I agree that 1 July is good.  4.1 replaces 4.0, on a steady yearly cycle as we have been able to do the last years.
>
> Let's see if others than Helge disagree.

I won’t be, either, since I’ll be in Brussels, a long way from my build machine.

Regards,
John Ralls


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Josip
In reply to this post by Paul Franklin-5
Dana 3.4.2014. 0:45, Paul Franklin je napisao:

> I will repeat again my opinion that we shouldn't release
> 4.1 until 4.0.x has been in use by Windows users for
> a long time, almost a year -- as would normally be true.
>
> That hasn't been the case and bugs about 4.0.x are
> still coming in, including lots of GUI-related and DB-
> related bugs -- which are beyond the ability of many
> people to investigate and fix.
>
> I don't see any strong reason to push 4.1 out the
> door when we are still in the early life of all the big
> changes which appeared in 4.0.0.  For instance
> there are very few users who are using 4.0.x under
> Python3 and so I suspect there are still lots of bugs
> lurking there.  I also am guessing that very few of
> the developers are using a "new" Gtk (e.g. 3.10.x),
> and if they were I would guess that more such bugs
> would be being noticed, and fixed.
>
> We don't have a lot of developers who are active at
> the moment and in my opinion this is the wrong time
> to be making any major change -- like releasing 4.1.0

Not everyone have to use latest Gramps version.
Every bug fixed in branch must also be pushed to master so master is
equally "stable" as previous branch, except new code off course.
Releasing 4.1 don't mean that 3.4.x will be abandoned etc.

--
Josip

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Nick Hall-6
In reply to this post by John Ralls-2
On 04/04/14 21:11, John Ralls wrote:
>> Helge will not be happy with 1 July. If we see this as the evolution of 4.0, and keep maintaining 3.4 as we have been doing the last year, I agree that 1 July is good.  4.1 replaces 4.0, on a steady yearly cycle as we have been able to do the last years.
>> >
>> >Let's see if others than Helge disagree.
> I won’t be, either, since I’ll be in Brussels, a long way from my build machine.

The last major release (v4.0.0) was on 21 May 2013.  Perhaps we could
aim for 21 May 2014?

I'll have time for testing and bug fixing over the next couple of
months.  I don't really mind what the exact date is.


Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Paul Franklin-5
I am happy with May or July (or April or October),
as long as 1) 3.4.x continues to be maintained, and
2) the 4.1.0 release message specifically says that
3.4.x is being maintained and thus can be used.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Helge.Herz-2
In reply to this post by Benny Malengier

> Helge will not be happy with 1 July. If we see this as the evolution
> of 4.0, and keep maintaining 3.4 as we have been doing the last year,
> I agree that 1 July is good. 4.1 replaces 4.0, on a steady yearly
> cycle as we have been able to do the last years.
>
Why should I be not happy?
I really don't code but will still continue to validate Gramps on Win if
I have enough time. So it's not by me to force a major influence for any
schedule.
The only thing I would like to suggest is to move to less versions and
variants if possible: 3.4.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, using Python 2.x, using
Python 3.x, using newer gtk versions. What not means to break the
support for 3.4.x - but may be to focus on maintenance releases without
new features only, beginning at day X.
- Helge

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Nick Hall-6
On 04/04/14 21:45, Helge.Herz wrote:
> The only thing I would like to suggest is to move to less versions and
> variants if possible: 3.4.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, using Python 2.x, using
> Python 3.x, using newer gtk versions. What not means to break the
> support for 3.4.x - but may be to focus on maintenance releases without
> new features only, beginning at day X.

I agree.

When v4.1 is released we will drop support for v4.0.  Support for v3.4
will continue.

Should we make v4.1 python3 only?  It would make development and testing
easier.

I have been tending to backport changes to both v3.4 and v4.0. Perhaps
it would be better to go back to the policy of bug fixes only for
maintenance releases.

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Vassilii Khachaturov
On 05.04.2014 00:08, Nick Hall wrote:
> On 04/04/14 21:45, Helge.Herz wrote:
>> >The only thing I would like to suggest is to move to less versions and
>> >variants if possible: 3.4.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, using Python 2.x, using
>> >Python 3.x, using newer gtk versions. What not means to break the
>> >support for 3.4.x - but may be to focus on maintenance releases without
>> >new features only, beginning at day X.
> I agree.
+1
>
> When v4.1 is released we will drop support for v4.0.  Support for v3.4
> will continue.
This sounds reasonable, but I think it is only feasible if the major
distros go along with that. E.g., if Ubuntu LTS 14.04 ships 4.0, we're
going to have a lot of users we abandon this way!
Maybe we should drop 3.4?
>
> Should we make v4.1 python3 only?  It would make development and testing
> easier.
Sounds good, but that means we need to commit to squashing the
outstanding python3-only bugs for that release.

V

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Benny Malengier
In reply to this post by Helge.Herz-2



2014-04-04 22:45 GMT+02:00 Helge.Herz <[hidden email]>:

> Helge will not be happy with 1 July. If we see this as the evolution
> of 4.0, and keep maintaining 3.4 as we have been doing the last year,
> I agree that 1 July is good. 4.1 replaces 4.0, on a steady yearly
> cycle as we have been able to do the last years.
>
Why should I be not happy?
I really don't code but will still continue to validate Gramps on Win if
I have enough time. So it's not by me to force a major influence for any
schedule.
The only thing I would like to suggest is to move to less versions and
variants if possible: 3.4.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, using Python 2.x, using
Python 3.x, using newer gtk versions. What not means to break the
support for 3.4.x - but may be to focus on maintenance releases without
new features only, beginning at day X.

Sorry Helge, I mixed up. I meant Paul. Getting old I suppose..
 
- Helge

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Benny Malengier
In reply to this post by Nick Hall-6



2014-04-04 23:08 GMT+02:00 Nick Hall <[hidden email]>:
On 04/04/14 21:45, Helge.Herz wrote:
> The only thing I would like to suggest is to move to less versions and
> variants if possible: 3.4.x, 4.0.x, 4.1.x, using Python 2.x, using
> Python 3.x, using newer gtk versions. What not means to break the
> support for 3.4.x - but may be to focus on maintenance releases without
> new features only, beginning at day X.

I agree.

When v4.1 is released we will drop support for v4.0.  Support for v3.4
will continue.

That is a bit too fast, or too strongly worded.
Support for 4.0 will not stop completely, but will be limited to important bug fixes, like data eating stuff. Distributions released with 4.0 might carry a minimal bug fix release, but will not change to 4.1.

This is the same as before. In reality it means very few releases of 4.0 will still occur, and if no big things, no releases at all. But for big issues, we will not reply with 'install  4.1'. We will fix it in 4.0. As 4.0 is the only one that produces xml that 3.4 can open, this seems not bad.
On release of 4.2 in 2015, support for 4.0 will be ended, and hopefully also 3.4.

Benny
 

Should we make v4.1 python3 only?  It would make development and testing
easier.

I have been tending to backport changes to both v3.4 and v4.0. Perhaps
it would be better to go back to the policy of bug fixes only for
maintenance releases.

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Paul Franklin-5
On 4/5/14, Benny Malengier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That is a bit too fast, or too strongly worded.
> Support for 4.0 will not stop completely, but will be limited to important
> bug fixes, like data eating stuff. Distributions released with 4.0 might
> carry a minimal bug fix release, but will not change to 4.1.

I agree.  Ubuntu 14.04 is LTS and will have 4.0.3
and so I think we should support 4.0.x for a while.

> This is the same as before. In reality it means very few releases of 4.0
> will still occur, and if no big things, no releases at all. But for big
> issues, we will not reply with 'install  4.1'. We will fix it in 4.0. As
> 4.0 is the only one that produces xml that 3.4 can open, this seems not
> bad.

I know that 4.0.0 XML could be read by whatever
3.4.x was current when 4.0.0 was released, but
is that still the case?  Didn't the schema go up to
1.5.1?  Does 3.4.8 read in the 1.5.1 that 4.0.4 makes?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Tim Lyons
Administrator
In reply to this post by Paul Franklin-5
Paul Franklin-5 wrote
I am happy with May or July (or April or October),
as long as 1) 3.4.x continues to be maintained, and
2) the 4.1.0 release message specifically says that
3.4.x is being maintained and thus can be used.
Since everyone else is happy with that sort of schedule, then I am content provided:
(1) May is too soon, and July won't work because John Ralls is not available for the Mac release.
(2) 3.4.x is maintained, as stipulated by others.
(3) something is resolved about the attributes change (see the following paragraphs):

GEPS018/GEP018 progressed well, and I mostly completed it, including incorporating code to use citeproc for processing CSL style definitions[2] and [3]. However, attributes are changed, so we have three incompatible ways of dealing with attributes (and hence three different database schemas):

(a) The current ('data') approach in 3.4.x and 4.0.x.
(b) The mechanism in trunk, which was specially implemented for evidence style sources, but is not compatible with the current GEPS018.
(c) The mechanism in GEPS018, which is compatible with the code for evidence style sources.[5]


Since the only point of the change to attributes was to support evidence style sources[4], and the schema in current trunk doesn't support the current evidence style sources code, there is no point in having it: to go to evidence style we would need yet another database change.

So, either trunk has to go back to the current ('data') approach, or the approach in GEPS018 has to be included into trunk. I don't know how to go about doing that.

Regards,
Tim.




[1] http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GEP006-Hierarchical-places-tp4662983p4663209.html
[2] http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GEP018-tp4661745.html
[3] http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/GEP018-tp4661745p4662078.html
[4] OK, it also allows media on attributes, but that is mainly a by-product.
[5] (b) and (c) have the same database (schema) version number

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Nick Hall-6
On 05/04/14 17:56, Tim Lyons wrote:
> So, either trunk has to go back to the current ('data') approach, or the
> approach in GEPS018 has to be included into trunk. I don't know how to go
> about doing that.

I'll have a look at the approach you have used in GEPS018 and see which
is easiest.

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Nick Hall-6
On 05/04/14 18:13, Nick Hall wrote:
>> So, either trunk has to go back to the current ('data') approach, or the
>> >approach in GEPS018 has to be included into trunk. I don't know how to go
>> >about doing that.
> I'll have a look at the approach you have used in GEPS018 and see which
> is easiest.

Tim,

I can't get GEPS018 to run.  I get the following error:

gramps/gui/widgets/validatedmaskedentry.py", line 1174, in do_changed
if self._block_changed:
AttributeError: 'UndoableEntry' object has no attribute '_block_changed'

Looking at the code, I see much difference between Source Attributes in
GEPS018 and master.  What am I missing?

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.1.0 [was: Enhanced citation editor]

Nick Hall-6
On 05/04/14 18:45, Nick Hall wrote:
Looking at the code, I see much difference between Source Attributes in 
GEPS018 and master.  What am I missing?
Sorry.  I should have said I can't see much difference!  :)

It looks very similar to Benny's code.

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
12