Re: [AD] Allegro 4.2.0 RC2

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2005-08-30, Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz <gradha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If releasing things is that a burden, maybe we should find a way
> to ease that process? I've already thought of that for the web,
> so it's a matter of finding some time/motivation now to fix it.

Sure.  But some of the tedium is inherent.  If you get halfway through
the packaging and find that one of the files is broken for some
platform, you need to fix the problem in the CVS tree and start over.
This *always* occurs.  (And if you're sloppy, as I was, you don't catch
the problem.)

Another boring thing is just cutting and pasting and rewording CVS
commit messages into the changes._tx style and format, then updating the
authors list.  Luckily most of the CVS commit messages are already such
that there is not much rewording to be done (please keep it that way!)

> I carefully tried to avoid the backport word. Just applying the
> vital patches to make it compile out of the box would be enough. The
> point is, new users will be scared of using something labelled
> unstable branch. And now with 4.2.0 near, are we going to maintain
> two stable branches and the WIP one?

It's unlikely.  If people send us patches then we can apply them to keep
the 4.0.x branch compiling, but that's probably it.

> > If there is a nice tool for it please point it out (I haven't
> > looked yet).
> 
> cvsps makes it easier to group "patchsets". But even svn lacks merge
> tracking, so it relies heavily on policy/management layers like trac.

cvsps looks like it might provide what I want, thanks.

Peter