* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released [not found] <Tc0a88d0153e16b257e@mailsweeper01.cambridgesiliconradio.com> @ 2001-06-01 16:35 ` Clint Adams 2001-06-01 16:48 ` Peter Stephenson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Clint Adams @ 2001-06-01 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: zsh-workers 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? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released [not found] <Tc0a88d0153e16b257e@mailsweeper01.cambridgesiliconradio.com> 2001-06-01 16:35 ` ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released Clint Adams @ 2001-06-01 16:48 ` Peter Stephenson 2001-06-01 17:30 ` Clint Adams ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2001-06-01 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh hackers list 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. ********************************************************************** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-01 16:48 ` Peter Stephenson @ 2001-06-01 17:30 ` Clint Adams 2001-06-01 17:42 ` Clint Adams 2001-06-01 17:50 ` Peter Stephenson 2001-06-01 18:19 ` Andrej Borsenkow 2001-06-02 13:22 ` Adam Spiers 2 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Clint Adams @ 2001-06-01 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Stephenson; +Cc: Zsh hackers list > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-01 17:30 ` Clint Adams @ 2001-06-01 17:42 ` Clint Adams 2001-06-01 18:10 ` Bart Schaefer 2001-06-01 17:50 ` Peter Stephenson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Clint Adams @ 2001-06-01 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Stephenson; +Cc: Zsh hackers list > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-01 17:42 ` Clint Adams @ 2001-06-01 18:10 ` Bart Schaefer 2001-06-01 18:15 ` Peter Stephenson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2001-06-01 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh hackers list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-01 18:10 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2001-06-01 18:15 ` Peter Stephenson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2001-06-01 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh hackers list "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. ********************************************************************** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-01 17:30 ` Clint Adams 2001-06-01 17:42 ` Clint Adams @ 2001-06-01 17:50 ` Peter Stephenson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2001-06-01 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh hackers list > 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. ********************************************************************** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-01 16:48 ` Peter Stephenson 2001-06-01 17:30 ` Clint Adams @ 2001-06-01 18:19 ` Andrej Borsenkow 2001-06-01 18:37 ` Peter Stephenson 2001-06-02 13:22 ` Adam Spiers 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Andrej Borsenkow @ 2001-06-01 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh hackers list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-01 18:19 ` Andrej Borsenkow @ 2001-06-01 18:37 ` Peter Stephenson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Peter Stephenson @ 2001-06-01 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh hackers list 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. ********************************************************************** ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-01 16:48 ` Peter Stephenson 2001-06-01 17:30 ` Clint Adams 2001-06-01 18:19 ` Andrej Borsenkow @ 2001-06-02 13:22 ` Adam Spiers 2001-06-02 14:25 ` Bart Schaefer 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Adam Spiers @ 2001-06-02 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh hackers list 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-02 13:22 ` Adam Spiers @ 2001-06-02 14:25 ` Bart Schaefer 2001-06-02 17:42 ` Andrej Borsenkow 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Bart Schaefer @ 2001-06-02 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh hackers list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-02 14:25 ` Bart Schaefer @ 2001-06-02 17:42 ` Andrej Borsenkow 2001-06-03 4:16 ` E. Jay Berkenbilt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Andrej Borsenkow @ 2001-06-02 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zsh hackers list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released 2001-06-02 17:42 ` Andrej Borsenkow @ 2001-06-03 4:16 ` E. Jay Berkenbilt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: E. Jay Berkenbilt @ 2001-06-03 4:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrej.Borsenkow; +Cc: zsh-workers > 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-06-03 4:16 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <Tc0a88d0153e16b257e@mailsweeper01.cambridgesiliconradio.com> 2001-06-01 16:35 ` ANNOUNCEMENT: zsh 4.0.1 released Clint Adams 2001-06-01 16:48 ` Peter Stephenson 2001-06-01 17:30 ` Clint Adams 2001-06-01 17:42 ` Clint Adams 2001-06-01 18:10 ` Bart Schaefer 2001-06-01 18:15 ` Peter Stephenson 2001-06-01 17:50 ` Peter Stephenson 2001-06-01 18:19 ` Andrej Borsenkow 2001-06-01 18:37 ` Peter Stephenson 2001-06-02 13:22 ` Adam Spiers 2001-06-02 14:25 ` Bart Schaefer 2001-06-02 17:42 ` Andrej Borsenkow 2001-06-03 4:16 ` E. Jay Berkenbilt
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/ This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).