Re: 2.0.1 bug situation, esp. wrt ZVT

Luis Villa <louie ximian com> writes:
> > 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.

Sure, but that isn't relevant to my point; putting vte in 2.0.x isn't
an option either. We're only considering vte for 2.2, where we have 5
months left to stabilize it.
> 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.

My opinion is that the i18n support is a feature, we missed the 2.0.x
boat on this feature, and we have to fix it in 2.2 rather than break
the feature freeze and destabilize things. 

The main reason I think this is that we need to move on to 2.2 when
2.0.2 comes out, and not a day later; and that means the main
tinderbox/snapshot/testing/bugzilla work has to move to 2.1.x; and
that means you aren't going to be able to test the large zvt changes

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are darn close to 2.0.2 already,
aren't we?


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