LibTiff Mailing List
TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
February 2010
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Previous by Thread
Next by Thread
Previous by Date
Next by Date
Contact
The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems
Thread
2010.02.22 19:58 "Re: Libtiff 4.0.0beta5 Released", by Frank Warmerdam
Lee Howard wrote: > Frank Warmerdam wrote: >> Lee Howard wrote: >>> I understand your response to mean that you wish to promote the >>> current 4.0 beta to a release-candidate rather than making changes >>> that would generally require another beta. I have nothing against >>> this. I am completely supportive of whatever is required to speed up >>> the pace of libtiff releases. >> >> I am concerned that incorporating the changes without reviewing the >> carefully, and perhaps having another beta would be somewhat risky. >> And they don't seem to be have any special priority related to the >> 4.0 release. They are just bug fixes and enhancements that could >> be done anytime or have been done anytime in the last decade. > > Okay, so I understood. Since I've now committed the changes I think > that the completely proper thing is to release another beta, but I > personally find the propriety of release procedure self-defeating in > many cases such as this. I would rather see current CVS be cut as > 4.0.0-rc1 than to see another beta. I think that the changes would get > better pre-release exposure that way than to cut another beta. Lee, I have no strong position on whether we would go to RC1 or another beta. I'll leave it to Bob to cut a release when he has the time, and as far as I am concerned he can decide whether he thinks it should be a release candidate or another beta. > Also, I'm very much interested in seeing a 3.9.3 release that coincides > with the 4.0.0 release. I suggest that that would likely be the last > 3.9 release. (Maintaining multiple branches is rather burdensome.) I would also like to see a 3.9.3 come out near the 4.0 release. I'm ok with thereafter doing only low intensity mainteance on the 3.9 branch, but I do think we should still consider the branch open for important bug fixes with the idea of a 3.9.4 possible in the future. But I would only backport fairly important bug fixes. For instance security fixes, or fixes for significant regressions or really major long standing bugs depending on developer interest. I would not consider developers obligated to backport all fixes. Best regards, -- ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent