Alright folks, I have to confess that the 1.6 release came and I didn't immediately get up and dance.
In fact, a new Wine release was almost...boring.
I think we have to consider that a major milestone in of itself. New, useful releases are just a matter of course for us now.
Woohoo! Now I'm dancing <grin>.
Cheers,
Jeremy
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 04:55:42PM -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
Alright folks, I have to confess that the 1.6 release came and I didn't immediately get up and dance.
In fact, a new Wine release was almost...boring.
I think we have to consider that a major milestone in of itself. New, useful releases are just a matter of course for us now.
Woohoo! Now I'm dancing <grin>.
I keep hearing "Considering that it took you 15 years for 1.0 you are grinding them out really fast now" ;)
Ciao, Marcus
On 07/19/2013 01:40 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 04:55:42PM -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
Alright folks, I have to confess that the 1.6 release came and I didn't immediately get up and dance.
In fact, a new Wine release was almost...boring.
I think we have to consider that a major milestone in of itself. New, useful releases are just a matter of course for us now.
Woohoo! Now I'm dancing <grin>.
I keep hearing "Considering that it took you 15 years for 1.0 you are grinding them out really fast now" ;)
Soon he'll want us to do 6 or even 3 months time based releases! ;)
bye michael
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:55:42 -0500 Jeremy White jwhite@codeweavers.com wrote:
Alright folks, I have to confess that the 1.6 release came and I didn't immediately get up and dance.
In fact, a new Wine release was almost...boring.
What was most striking to me about this release was the fact that not a single bug was targeted to be fixed for 1.6. The practice of nominating bugs for specific milestones seems to have been abandoned. I can't help but wonder why.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 09:00:30AM -0500, Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:55:42 -0500 Jeremy White jwhite@codeweavers.com wrote:
Alright folks, I have to confess that the 1.6 release came and I didn't immediately get up and dance.
In fact, a new Wine release was almost...boring.
What was most striking to me about this release was the fact that not a single bug was targeted to be fixed for 1.6. The practice of nominating bugs for specific milestones seems to have been abandoned. I can't help but wonder why.
Either we are good :)
Or we should have reminded and called for this kind of tagging and bug squashing work.
Ciao, Marcus
Marcus Meissner meissner@suse.de writes:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 09:00:30AM -0500, Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:55:42 -0500 Jeremy White jwhite@codeweavers.com wrote:
Alright folks, I have to confess that the 1.6 release came and I didn't immediately get up and dance.
In fact, a new Wine release was almost...boring.
What was most striking to me about this release was the fact that not a single bug was targeted to be fixed for 1.6. The practice of nominating bugs for specific milestones seems to have been abandoned. I can't help but wonder why.
Either we are good :)
Or we should have reminded and called for this kind of tagging and bug squashing work.
I think working from the regressions list is more productive (and we have made some good progress there).
On 19/07/13 15:00, Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:55:42 -0500 Jeremy White jwhite@codeweavers.com wrote:
Alright folks, I have to confess that the 1.6 release came and I didn't immediately get up and dance.
In fact, a new Wine release was almost...boring.
What was most striking to me about this release was the fact that not a single bug was targeted to be fixed for 1.6. The practice of nominating bugs for specific milestones seems to have been abandoned. I can't help but wonder why.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24611 was added two days ago. *shrugs*
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0100, Ken Sharp wrote:
On 19/07/13 15:00, Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:55:42 -0500 Jeremy White jwhite@codeweavers.com wrote:
Alright folks, I have to confess that the 1.6 release came and I didn't immediately get up and dance.
In fact, a new Wine release was almost...boring.
What was most striking to me about this release was the fact that not a single bug was targeted to be fixed for 1.6. The practice of nominating bugs for specific milestones seems to have been abandoned. I can't help but wonder why.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24611 was added two days ago. *shrugs*
We noticed too late. ;)
But thats software management life, you always have bugs left over when you release. More for 1.6.1 or 1.7.x :)
Ciao, Marcus
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:14:08 +0200 Marcus Meissner marcus@jet.franken.de wrote:
We noticed too late. ;)
But thats software management life, you always have bugs left over when you release. More for 1.6.1 or 1.7.x :)
So maybe now is the time to start thinking about bugs to target for 1.8. There are longstanding bugs that are not regressions, but they do affect a lot of apps.
mfc.dll (bug 611 IIRC) *cough*
:) On Jul 19, 2013 2:23 PM, "Rosanne DiMesio" dimesio@earthlink.net wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:14:08 +0200 Marcus Meissner marcus@jet.franken.de wrote:
We noticed too late. ;)
But thats software management life, you always have bugs left over when you release. More for 1.6.1 or 1.7.x :)
So maybe now is the time to start thinking about bugs to target for 1.8. There are longstanding bugs that are not regressions, but they do affect a lot of apps.
-- Rosanne DiMesio dimesio@earthlink.net
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Jeremy White -
Ken Sharp -
Marcus Meissner -
Marcus Meissner -
Michael Stefaniuc -
Rosanne DiMesio -
Thomas Spear