Re: GNOME 3.1.2 release post-mortem notes
- From: Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>
- To: Piñeiro <apinheiro igalia com>
- Cc: release-team gnome org
- Subject: Re: GNOME 3.1.2 release post-mortem notes
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 09:54:40 +0200
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:11:11AM +0000, Piñeiro wrote:
> * It was delayed: don't know if it is usual, but some module releases
> were made the same day of GNOME release, some of them asked by us
> (ie gstreamer)
Seems normal due to all the issues.
> * Several maintainers are pissed off, some due last changes on glib,
> others in general. Some extracts:
> Jun 15 19:08:34 <__tim> (but I'm unhappy that you guys aren't
> screaming at the glib maintainers a bit more, it seems it could be
> handled better)
Late minute API change = not good.
> <snip>
> Jun 16 18:02:29 <behdad> I'm about to send mail about
> resigning from pango maintenance
> Jun 16 18:02:43 <behdad> it's just so much pain these days,
> for little joy
> Jun 16 18:03:02 * behdad misses good old days where "make
> distcheck" worked everyday...
That seems like change for change sake. Not good.
> * Some (specifically Owen Taylor) questioned the need of those early
> 3.1.x releases.
It is to make developers aware that they cannot go too overboard with
development :-)
> * mx conclusion. Totem has a dependency with mx. So although included
> on the release, I skipped it on the jbuildrc file. Some kind on
> conclusion about mx is required:
hmmm...
> * Not really relevant, we can call it the release of
> UG_DISABLE_DEPRECATED, as I needed to add
> "module_makeargs['xxxmodule'] = makeargs +
> 'CFLAGS+="-UG_DISABLE_DEPRECATED"' to 20 different modules, mostly
> this missing pango release fixing it.
That's as there is some DISABLE_DEPRECATED in the released tarballs, no?
IMO we should remove such things from tarballs.
--
Regards,
Olav
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]