Status of 4.1.x branch?

Status of 4.1.x branch?

[Danek Duvall]

What's the status on a follow-on to 4.1.1?  I'm thinking of pushing for
4.1.1 to be integrated into Solaris (to replace 3.0.6 or whatever's
there currently), because it seems stable enough to be a win over 4.0.x,
but if there's going to be a new release soon, then I'd like to sit on
it until then.  (If there's a concern that 4.1.x isn't stable enough yet
for such a release, then I can push for 4.0.7 instead.)

Thanks,
Danek

Re: Status of 4.1.x branch?

[Mads Martin Joergensen]

* Danek Duvall <duvall@emufarm.org> [Nov 11. 2003 22:30]:
> What's the status on a follow-on to 4.1.1?  I'm thinking of pushing for
> 4.1.1 to be integrated into Solaris (to replace 3.0.6 or whatever's
> there currently), because it seems stable enough to be a win over 4.0.x,
> but if there's going to be a new release soon, then I'd like to sit on
> it until then.  (If there's a concern that 4.1.x isn't stable enough yet
> for such a release, then I can push for 4.0.7 instead.)

Good point.

I've included 4.1.1 in SuSE Linux 9.0 and I saw not a single bug report
up until now ( +1 month ).

-- 
Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk
"Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic
 and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?"
                                -- A. P. J.

Re: Status of 4.1.x branch?

[Peter Stephenson]

Danek Duvall wrote:
> What's the status on a follow-on to 4.1.1?  I'm thinking of pushing for
> 4.1.1 to be integrated into Solaris (to replace 3.0.6 or whatever's
> there currently), because it seems stable enough to be a win over 4.0.x,
> but if there's going to be a new release soon, then I'd like to sit on
> it until then.  (If there's a concern that 4.1.x isn't stable enough yet
> for such a release, then I can push for 4.0.7 instead.)

I think you're (both) right; 4.1 is probably as stable as 4.0, plus gets
more testing from the people writing the internals.  I've been hoping
for improvements in the parameter area, plus at least some basic support
for UTF-8, but there hasn't been anyone to work on that.

I've been planning a maintainance release of both, but it may be time to
dump the fiction that 4.1 is unstable and release 4.2.0 instead.  We
might as well release a 4.0.8 as a final 4.0 for anyone who's happy with
that line.

I'm still not completely happy with the termcap and terminfo modules,
they still seem to be the source of compatibility problems despite a lot
of effort to make them portable.

Plea: We really need someone to do the work making sure all relevant
patches are applied to 4.0.  It's unlikely I'll have time to do it
thoroughly even given lists of potential patches.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

Re: Status of 4.1.x branch?

[Oliver Kiddle]

Peter wrote:
> 
> Plea: We really need someone to do the work making sure all relevant
> patches are applied to 4.0.  It's unlikely I'll have time to do it
> thoroughly even given lists of potential patches.

I've gone through the patches I listed in 18976 and applied those which
were relevant. I did go through fairly thoroughly at the time. I've
also applied 17567 (loading compctl when complist is loaded but new
completion not enabled) because it worked when testing on 4.0, it
was asked about recently and it is a bug.

A few turned out to be not applicable or too hard to back port: 18569,
18565 (${(u)..}), 18476 (complist has changed), 18318, 18264 (touched
code for jobs working in subshells). As people mentioned at the time,
users/6421, 17295 and 17175 also are not applicable to 4.0

So that leaves changes since 18976. You might want to check users/6493,
some of 19168, 19167 and perhaps 19105.

Would be good to get a 4.0.8 out and be done with the 4.0 branch. I'm
not going to do any more searching through Changelogs but there probably
isn't much left that I've missed anyway.

Oliver

Re: Status of 4.1.x branch?

[Peter Stephenson]

Oliver Kiddle wrote:
> I've gone through the patches I listed in 18976 and applied those which
> were relevant.

Thanks.

> So that leaves changes since 18976. You might want to check users/6493,

The first one ought to be applicable.  I asked for something more
configurable for the second bit but didn't get it.

> some of 19168

We should probably fix the ztrtfime problem

> 19167

Fixes BRACE_CCL with NULLs, should be simple enough

> and perhaps 19105.

Confusion about job control and terminal output.  Hmm... the fix was
short enough but the overall effect wasn't totally obvious.  Still,
nobody's complained.

> Would be good to get a 4.0.8 out and be done with the 4.0 branch. I'm
> not going to do any more searching through Changelogs but there probably
> isn't much left that I've missed anyway.

I would plan to make 4.0.8 and 4.1.2 more or less at the same time,
announcing that the former is expected to be the last release on that
line, and the latter is expected to turn into 4.2.0 with some more
testing.  It was reasonably painless last time.  I don't think either
desperately needs test versions releasing.

After that, 4.1 can turn into pre-release versions of 4.2.

After that, we can stick with 4.2 until we really need to branch.  This
is partly because Oliver keeps getting me on the subject, but actually
he's right that there's no real need to keep a completely separate
development branch at the moment.

If we need to do something quite involved, it would be worth considering
doing it on a private branch rather than create a completely new
development branch --- there just aren't enough of us working on zsh to
make it efficient.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>                  Software Engineer
CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

Re: Status of 4.1.x branch?

[Ollivier Robert]

According to Danek Duvall:
> there currently), because it seems stable enough to be a win over 4.0.x,
> but if there's going to be a new release soon, then I'd like to sit on
> it until then.  (If there's a concern that 4.1.x isn't stable enough yet
> for such a release, then I can push for 4.0.7 instead.)

Apple has integrated 4.0.7 in Jaguar/Panther.
-- 
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr
Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.0.0: Wed Sep 24 15:48:39 PDT 2003