Re: 2.0.1 bug situation, esp. wrt ZVT

On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 14:40, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Luis Villa <louie ximian com> writes: 
> > No, no! zvt will be the community's solution for the 2.0.x series- it's
> > just I'm afraid you've been the only person working on it, so when I saw
> > no response from you I was afraid no solution was forthcoming. :) If you
> > are going to continue to work on it, please don't let my
> > misunderstandings of your situation stop you :) 
> > 
> I should point out, in my opinion it is impossible to fix and
> stabilize zvt in the timeframe we have for 2.0.2. Just won't make the
> deadline. So if we're fixing zvt, it's either for 2.2, or it's going
> to mean making large destabilizing changes post-2.0.2.

FWIW, it's currently way more stable (even in the i18n branch) than vte-
there hasn't been a crash reported against it in months against the
trunk, and the i18n branch in it's current form has no reported crashes,
despite a couple of weeks of testing in the ximian snaps. I have no idea
how much further work hidetoshi needs to do, though.

> There may be some small stopgaps that can go in Zvt in the available
> time, but I just don't believe anyone is enough of a badass to fix and
> stabilize in that time. I could be proven wrong of course. ;-)
> But I'm not sure we should particularly be planning to make the large
> Zvt fixes purely for 2.0.x, just isn't realistic.

As it is, zvt is pretty unusable for anyone who needs anything outside
of [A-z]. So... IMHO, it's worth risking destabilizing it because the
remaining bug is so huge. I guess that's a judgement call, though- I'm
not sure whose.


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