todo after 1.0 is released

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

todo after 1.0 is released

Stéphane Ducasse
Hi Adrian

Once 1.0 is released we should check that all the fixes that went in 1.0 after the fork to 1.1 are integrated in 1.1.
Would be nice also to remove the testsexpected to break so that we give them a chance to be fixed in 1.1.

Stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: todo after 1.0 is released

Mariano Martinez Peck


On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Adrian

Once 1.0 is released we should check that all the fixes that went in 1.0 after the fork to 1.1 are integrated in 1.1.

The problem is how we can identify them ?
I only remember
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1841
but it even is different in 1.1

Ahh maybe also the NetNameResolver problem ?
 
Would be nice also to remove the testsexpected to break so that we give them a chance to be fixed in 1.1.


Good idea.
 
Stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: todo after 1.0 is released

Adrian Lienhard
Usually I put the 1.1 tag on items I integrated in 1.0 and I didn't close the issues so they are not lost. The only one I remember that we may also want to integrate is the network rollback. Not sure what the plan is there. But it doesn't seem anybody is working on a better implementation so I suggest we also roll back in 1.1.

Adrian

On Apr 7, 2010, at 14:20 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Adrian
>>
>> Once 1.0 is released we should check that all the fixes that went in 1.0
>> after the fork to 1.1 are integrated in 1.1.
>>
>
> The problem is how we can identify them ?
> I only remember
> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1841
> but it even is different in 1.1
>
> Ahh maybe also the NetNameResolver problem ?
>
>
>> Would be nice also to remove the testsexpected to break so that we give
>> them a chance to be fixed in 1.1.
>>
>>
> Good idea.
>
>
>> Stef
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: todo after 1.0 is released

Stéphane Ducasse
Yes
        http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2282



On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:

> Usually I put the 1.1 tag on items I integrated in 1.0 and I didn't close the issues so they are not lost. The only one I remember that we may also want to integrate is the network rollback. Not sure what the plan is there. But it doesn't seem anybody is working on a better implementation so I suggest we also roll back in 1.1.
>
> Adrian
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 14:20 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
>> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Adrian
>>>
>>> Once 1.0 is released we should check that all the fixes that went in 1.0
>>> after the fork to 1.1 are integrated in 1.1.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is how we can identify them ?
>> I only remember
>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1841
>> but it even is different in 1.1
>>
>> Ahh maybe also the NetNameResolver problem ?
>>
>>
>>> Would be nice also to remove the testsexpected to break so that we give
>>> them a chance to be fixed in 1.1.
>>>
>>>
>> Good idea.
>>
>>
>>> Stef
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project