Roadmap reminder

[Jasper Huijsmans]

Hey,

On 29 May 2003 08:20:19 -0500
edscott wilson garcia <edscott at imp.mx> wrote:

> > 
> > As you can see we are just a couple of days before the first beta.
> > Now the question is, are we ready for that?
> 
> Yes, but the release procedure details should be organized. Are we to
> prepare binaries besides the tarballs? If so, who will prepare what
> binary for what platform? 
> 

Right, that kinda depends on what platforms we have access to I guess. I
wouldn't mind having only tarball releases with contributed binaries by
anyone who volunteers.

I recently tried to make most/all of our modules pass the make distcheck
and make rpm targets, so most of them should build properly from a
tarball created by make dist. rpm building need testing (I can only test
with --nodeps).

I suggested some time ago that we use $MAJOR.$MINOR version for our
pre-4.0 beta's (3.90, 3.91, etc.) and $MAJOR.$MINOR.$MICRO for
subsequent releases. So 4.0.x for the first stable releases, 4.1.x for
developments version leading up to the 4.2.x stable series. The panel,
xfwm4 and some other modules already adapted to this scheme I believe.
Can everyone agree with this?

> Once all the individual package binaries are ready, we can upload them
> to ftp://upload.sourceforge.net and Olivier or Chuck (as xfce admins)
> could add them to the xfce4-beta release. To avoid file tampering,
> md5sum should be prepared by each packager. How does that sound?
> 

Well, I think we all can add files to releases, but I agree to
appointing Olivier as release manager ;-)

Supplying md5sums with the releases sounds fine to me.


> > 
> > I think feature-wise we are mostly there. I can't judge very well
> > the status of xffm. Edscott, what's your opinion?
> 
> Feature wise it should be frozen (i.e., nothing which requires a
> translation should be added). I do think it very important to go ahead
> with the xfce4 release. For xffm the next scheduled work is "behind
> the stages": optimizing the xffm-lib into smaller components that will
> make startup faster and lower the memory footprint. This should fit in
> between the beta-release and the release-release.
> 

Ok, great.

[...]
> > 
> > I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this.
> 
> I'll try to find some time to work on xffm documentation, which should
> be ready for the beta release. 
> 

That would be cool. I volunteer to do the xml markup and I think I
should at least generate all html to prevent different style-sheet
versions from messing up our nice unified look.

	Jasper