Re: Meld 1.5.3 released

[Bálint Réczey <balint balintreczey hu>]

Hi Kai,

2012/2/7 Kai Willadsen <kai willadsen gmail com>:
...
>> I think the Meld roadmap would also be a very useful addition to the
>> new website.
>> I have been asked about the Meld roadmap many times and  I had to
>> direct the people to
>> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/meld-list/2010-July/msg00000.html for
>> the information.
>
> That sounds like a good idea. The problem is always that any roadmap
> ends up being more than a little fictional... like the one you linked
> above! I could put up a list of "stuff that's currently actually being
> worked on", as a substitute for a roadmap. I'll certainly think about
> doing this in future.
It would be nice to have even this information, but a tentative roadmap
would be even better.
Right now I'm a bit confused, because on the new website there is
nothing mentioning the difference between development and stable
releases. (Is there any difference?)

In Debian we have a bug requesting an upload of 1.5.3:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660523

As a co-maintainer of the meld package I'm generally against uploading
upstream's development releases to unstable, but since 1.5.3 seems to
be stable and Julian's request makes sense.

I would be much happier if I could upload 1.6.0, a release said to be a
stable official release by upstream.

I have a few questions which hopefully clarify the situation:
How should we handle the Meld releases?
Is the separation of development/stable releases still in effect?
Can we expect a stable release in the coming few months?

>
> In case people are interested, the things I'm looking at landing when
> I get a chance are:
>
>  * autotools port (still uncertain whether this is a good idea, but
> there are reasons...)
>  * port to use gtkrc colours (This involves a weird trade-off. It
> makes life *worse* for dark theme users, but also makes it possible
> for them to fix things to be better.)
>  * add a Cython version of MyersMatcher (the only remaining issue
> being how it integrates with the current and future build process)
>
> All of these are actually done, but for various reasons haven't been
> pushed. Some may be quite disruptive, so I'm contemplating whether to
> do a 1.6.0 first, then land these in a new 1.7 series.
I think having a stabilized 1.6.0 release would be nice.

Cheers,
Balint

>
> Anyway, thanks for the feedback!
>
> cheers,
> Kai