From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29249 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2003 13:13:15 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 13:13:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 4493 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2003 13:13:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 19246 Received: (qmail 4480 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2003 13:13:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 13:13:09 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [62.189.183.235] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 13:13:9 -0000 Received: from EXCHANGE02.csr.com (unverified) by MAILSWEEPER01.csr.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.10) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:13:08 +0000 Received: from csr.com ([192.168.144.127]) by EXCHANGE02.csr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:14:13 +0000 To: Zsh Workers Subject: Re: Status of 4.1.x branch? In-reply-to: "Oliver Kiddle"'s message of "Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:57:48 +0100." <22640.1068814668@gmcs3.local> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:13:04 +0000 Message-ID: <25893.1068815584@csr.com> From: Peter Stephenson X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2003 13:14:13.0223 (UTC) FILETIME=[32A6C770:01C3AAB1] 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 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 **********************************************************************