Re: 2.0.1 bug situation, esp. wrt ZVT

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

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
effectively.

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

Havoc
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers