Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Peter Stephenson]

Peter Stephenson wrote:
> Version 4.0.1 of zsh, the Z-Shell, has been released.

Many thanks to everybody who contributed to this, who know who they are.

I still have to post announcments to comp.unix.shell (have to do that from
home) and freshmeat (trying to get ownership of the project registered
there, which is currently owned by `N/A' --- I'm guessing taking it over
won't be too hard).  Other than that, I think it's in the bag.

There's a tradition that something major breaks at the last minute and we
have to do another release immediately after.  If that doesn't happen by
the middle of next week --- by which time any problems are hearby declared
to be non-disastrous --- any patches being held off can go in.

At some point we will probably need to create a 4.1 branch.  I hadn't
intended doing this until there was some major change in the pipeline.
If anyone has some significant changes planned, we can create it any time.
But managing two branches is a pain in the neck if they're both just
getting small tweaks.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Clint Adams]

> At some point we will probably need to create a 4.1 branch.  I hadn't
> intended doing this until there was some major change in the pipeline.
> If anyone has some significant changes planned, we can create it any time.
> But managing two branches is a pain in the neck if they're both just
> getting small tweaks.

I have some major breakage planned which likely has no business being
in the stable branch, so I'd prefer that 4.0 were tagged sooner than
later.  We were already maintaining 3.0 and 3.1 separately, just not
through CVS.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Clint Adams]

> I have some major breakage planned which likely has no business being
> in the stable branch, so I'd prefer that 4.0 were tagged sooner than
> later.  We were already maintaining 3.0 and 3.1 separately, just not
> through CVS.

On the other hand, there's no pressing need to branch until just before 4.0.2
is to be released.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Peter Stephenson]

> I have some major breakage planned which likely has no business being
> in the stable branch, so I'd prefer that 4.0 were tagged sooner than
> later.  We were already maintaining 3.0 and 3.1 separately, just not
> through CVS.

OK, in that case I've created a branch called `zsh-4_0-patches' (after a
botched attempt called `zsh-4_0_1-patches', ignore that).  We'll have to
decide patch by patch what is important enough to go on that branch, but
for the time being, at least, everything will go on the main branch in any
case.

For those not familiar with this bit of CVS, to get this branch:
  cvs checkout -r zsh-4_0_patches zsh
will check it out with a `sticky' tag so that commits go back on that
branch.  The main (development) branch will be the default if you don't do
that.  You can also do tricks with `update' which can get rather nasty.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Bart Schaefer]

On Jun 1,  1:42pm, Clint Adams wrote:
}
} On the other hand, there's no pressing need to branch until just before 4.0.2
} is to be released.

Right, 4.0.1 is tagged, so we can always create a branch off that point.
The only ugly part of "branch later" happens if we start adding files
(such as configure.ac ...).

On Jun 1,  6:50pm (really only 8 minutes later), Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} OK, in that case I've created a branch called `zsh-4_0-patches' (after a
} botched attempt called `zsh-4_0_1-patches', ignore that).  We'll have to
} decide patch by patch what is important enough to go on that branch, but

Do you want me to take charge of that, like I've been doing for 3.0?
Or are you OK with it now that it's all in one repository?

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net   

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Peter Stephenson]

"Bart Schaefer" wrote:
> On Jun 1,  6:50pm (really only 8 minutes later), Peter Stephenson wrote:
> }
> } OK, in that case I've created a branch called `zsh-4_0-patches' (after a
> } botched attempt called `zsh-4_0_1-patches', ignore that).  We'll have to
> } decide patch by patch what is important enough to go on that branch, but
> 
> Do you want me to take charge of that, like I've been doing for 3.0?
> Or are you OK with it now that it's all in one repository?

I'm happy to do it now it's fairly straightforward, but if you have the
time and the inclination it would probably benefit from having a separate
coordinator.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Andrej Borsenkow]

Peter Stephenson wrote:


> 
> At some point we will probably need to create a 4.1 branch.


I mildly disagree. IMHO we need 4.0 branch while continue to work in 
HEAD (as was the case). This way any ongoing patches do not disturb 
"stable" code.

-andrej

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Peter Stephenson]

Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
> Peter Stephenson wrote:
> > At some point we will probably need to create a 4.1 branch.
> 
> 
> I mildly disagree. IMHO we need 4.0 branch while continue to work in 
> HEAD (as was the case). This way any ongoing patches do not disturb 
> "stable" code.

That's what I really meant, and that's what's happened.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070


**********************************************************************
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and 
delete the material from any computer.
**********************************************************************

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Adam Spiers]

Peter Stephenson (pws@csr.com) wrote:
> Peter Stephenson wrote:
> > Version 4.0.1 of zsh, the Z-Shell, has been released.
> 
> Many thanks to everybody who contributed to this, who know who they are.

Yep, congratulations to you all on a fantastic job.

> I still have to post announcments to comp.unix.shell (have to do that from
> home) and freshmeat (trying to get ownership of the project registered
> there, which is currently owned by `N/A' --- I'm guessing taking it over
> won't be too hard).  Other than that, I think it's in the bag.

Have you thought about slashdotting the announcement too?  It might
help bring the shell closer to having the audience it deserves.

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Bart Schaefer]

On Jun 2,  2:22pm, Adam Spiers wrote:
}
} Have you thought about slashdotting the announcement too?  It might
} help bring the shell closer to having the audience it deserves.

I think maybe we should fix the "make check" failure before we invoke
the slashdot effect.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net   

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Andrej Borsenkow]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On Jun 2,  2:22pm, Adam Spiers wrote:
> }
> } Have you thought about slashdotting the announcement too?  It might
> } help bring the shell closer to having the audience it deserves.
>
> I think maybe we should fix the "make check" failure before we invoke
> the slashdot effect.
>

In which case we better call it 4.0.1a or 4.0.2. I never liked different
tarballs of the same version. It is highly confusing.

Should it include autoconf-2.50 fix (or, better, hack)?

-andrej

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[E. Jay Berkenbilt]

>   In which case we better call it 4.0.1a or 4.0.2. I never liked different
>   tarballs of the same version. It is highly confusing.

If I may emerge from lurk mode for a moment wearing my version purist
hat, I'd strongly suggest calling 4.0.2.  There's no shame in
incrementing the version number.  There's a little bit of shame in
being inconsistent with the version number.  There's a lot of shame in
calling two different things the by same name.  There.  Now I can go
back into lurk mode.

--
E. Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released

[Clint Adams]

I'm assuming that we're branching off 4.0.x as stable and
leaving the main CVS trunk as 4.1.  Are we going to have
a forked ChangeLog or a ChangeLog-4.0?