Re: releasing 1.9 soon...

[Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de>]

Hi,

David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 02:41:00PM +0300, Stefan Kost wrote:
>> Well then our understanding differs here. If a bug is closed as a reporter I
>> would like to know which release will have the fix. In the case of libraries I
>> could e.g. add a configure check for that version and disable a workaround if
>> the user has a recent enough version.
> 
> This is not about understanding, this is about misuse.
> However worthy your goal might be, misuse of bugzilla fields
> should not be the solution.
> 
>>> The list is incomplete anyway.  What about 322035, 383456,
>>> 445596, 450338, 465365, 466559?
>>>
>>> If you want to know bugs fixed since the last gtk-doc
>>> release, just ask bugzilla for it.
>>>
>> Exactly, therefore I use the field.
> 
> And my list is an illustration it does not work[*].  These
> bugs were fixed by 1.9 byt they are not marked with 1.9
> target milestone -- yet I easily found them by asking
> bugzilla.
>
I basicylly grepped the "Fixes #\d+" comments from the changelog. Maybe a query
by date in bugzilla would have work too. Is that what you have done?
Anyway I will now mark the missing one too to have a full list for the release
notes. In the future we shall use this as you said - to schedule bugs.

<snip>
>>> Considering interesting error messages vary wildly (from perl
>>> complaints such as `Use of uninitialized value...' to various
>>> WARNINGs to xsltproc messages), how we find them in the
>>> flood?
>>>
>> I am open to ideas here. Its more a sanity check that ensure that now build
>> aborts etc.
> 
> If I knew how to find the start and end of documentation
> build in the logs reliably, I'd just filter out everything
> known to be harmless (Writing foo for refentry(bar)..., ID
> recommended on..., gtk-doc: Running baz..., make:
> Leaving/Entering directory ..., \-continued blocks that
> looks like our commands, ...) and look at what remained.
> 
> Perhaps we can assume there is no interesting message before
> `gtk-doc: Scanning header files' and that `touch
> html-build.stamp' is the last thing printed, but it's not
> exactly reliable.
> 
> Well, I don't even know how to get the actual logs from
> build.gnome.org.  Moreover it seems most interestring builds
> started failing on 16 September due to some infrastructure
> change.

I'll see if I run find some time for yhbuild.

Stefan