Re: GNOME 2.2 screenshots

James Henstridge <james daa com au> writes: 
> There were a number of other issues like this that were bugs that only
> got reported in 1.6.  Given that most of the core modules can already
> be built out of CVS with 1.6 (not necessarily make distcheck'd), I
> think you are overstating the problems.

Tinderbox has to totally pass, and we have to be able to distcheck
releases. So unless we move all of stable to automake 1.6, everyone
still needs to install two automakes in order to use stable. And
that's the whole problem I'm stating. Heck even if we moved 2.0.x
stable to 1.6, some people are still wrangling GNOME 1.4.x.

Anyway I think it's empirically demonstrated that there's a problem,
as we're still using 1.4. If we had parallel install, we would have
been on 1.5 and 1.6 only weeks after their release, I have little
doubt.  The problem here is that moving a big block of modules (and
historical module branches) _all at once_ is hard, even though moving
each submodule is easy or even a no-op.

Stated another way, _adding_ an automake-1.x dependency is no big
deal, _replacing_ automake with an incompatible one is difficult.

I'm sure we'll suck it up and do the 1.6 migration someday anyway, but
it just really never had to be an issue, as all modules could have
been kept orthogonal.

</dead horse>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]