0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
Locked
 
|
Hi all,
I thinking to make a beta 1 release soon. A lots of bugs have been fixed since 0.10.0, and we cannot delay to the end of year for bugfix. About new feature, this can be continued during beta stage... What do you think about ? Gilles Caulier _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
|
|
> Hi all,
> > I thinking to make a beta 1 release soon. A lots of bugs have been > fixed since 0.10.0, and we cannot delay to the end of year for bugfix. > > About new feature, this can be continued during beta stage... > > What do you think about ? _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
2009/5/13 Marcel Wiesweg <[hidden email]>:
>> Hi all, >> >> I thinking to make a beta 1 release soon. A lots of bugs have been >> fixed since 0.10.0, and we cannot delay to the end of year for bugfix. >> >> About new feature, this can be continued during beta stage... >> >> What do you think about ? > > My main new feature is the icon view model/view which is not yet enabled. > It's the question to enable it, release beta1 freshly afterwards, and > receive many bug reports, or add it after beta1, do not get public testing > but more internal testing to iron out bugs before going public. Well, i'm agree to enable it. first test are fine. Of course bugs and regression will be found, i'm sure. beta release are dedicated to solve that. Before to release a beta, let's me hear how many time you need to polish code and prepare tests in public. I will post release plan... Gilles _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
About regression tests:
Are there any unit tests for digiKam? It often happens that we break things that worked before, with unit tests this could be easily avoided. I know tests are hard to write, especially on already existing code. But maybe we already have something and I'm not aware of that? Hidden somewhere in the dark corners of the SVN server :-) ? Andi On Wednesday 13 May 2009 20:31:04 Gilles Caulier wrote: > 2009/5/13 Marcel Wiesweg <[hidden email]>: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I thinking to make a beta 1 release soon. A lots of bugs have been > >> fixed since 0.10.0, and we cannot delay to the end of year for bugfix. > >> > >> About new feature, this can be continued during beta stage... > >> > >> What do you think about ? > > > > My main new feature is the icon view model/view which is not yet enabled. > > It's the question to enable it, release beta1 freshly afterwards, and > > receive many bug reports, or add it after beta1, do not get public > > testing but more internal testing to iron out bugs before going public. > > Well, i'm agree to enable it. first test are fine. Of course bugs and > regression will be found, i'm sure. beta release are dedicated to > solve that. > > Before to release a beta, let's me hear how many time you need to > polish code and prepare tests in public. I will post release plan... > > Gilles > _______________________________________________ > Digikam-devel mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Gilles Caulier-4
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 20:31:04 Gilles Caulier wrote:
> Before to release a beta, let's me hear how many time you need to > polish code and prepare tests in public. I will post release plan... I need very little time, just another weekend or so to implement settings persistence in the sharpen batch tool. What are your plans framework wise? Should I just go ahead and make a private storage or do you have something to reuse already? The architecture rework for the batch queue manager (using multi-instance batch tools instead of "singletons") is not on my radar for the beta1 (or 1.0.0) regards, matthias > > Gilles > _______________________________________________ > Digikam-devel mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Gilles Caulier-4
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 20:31:04 Gilles Caulier wrote:
> Before to release a beta, let's me hear how many time you need to > polish code and prepare tests in public. I will post release plan... > Name it alpha and everyone will be happy ;) m. _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from andi.clemens@gmx.net
2009/5/13 Andi Clemens <[hidden email]>:
> About regression tests: > Are there any unit tests for digiKam? well not yet. > It often happens that we break things that worked before, with unit tests this > could be easily avoided. > I know tests are hard to write, especially on already existing code. But maybe > we already have something and I'm not aware of that? > Hidden somewhere in the dark corners of the SVN server :-) ? no. Gilles > > Andi > > > On Wednesday 13 May 2009 20:31:04 Gilles Caulier wrote: >> 2009/5/13 Marcel Wiesweg <[hidden email]>: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I thinking to make a beta 1 release soon. A lots of bugs have been >> >> fixed since 0.10.0, and we cannot delay to the end of year for bugfix. >> >> >> >> About new feature, this can be continued during beta stage... >> >> >> >> What do you think about ? >> > >> > My main new feature is the icon view model/view which is not yet enabled. >> > It's the question to enable it, release beta1 freshly afterwards, and >> > receive many bug reports, or add it after beta1, do not get public >> > testing but more internal testing to iron out bugs before going public. >> >> Well, i'm agree to enable it. first test are fine. Of course bugs and >> regression will be found, i'm sure. beta release are dedicated to >> solve that. >> >> Before to release a beta, let's me hear how many time you need to >> polish code and prepare tests in public. I will post release plan... >> >> Gilles >> _______________________________________________ >> Digikam-devel mailing list >> [hidden email] >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Digikam-devel mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel > Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Matthias Welwarsky
2009/5/13 Matthias Welwarsky <[hidden email]>:
> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 20:31:04 Gilles Caulier wrote: >> Before to release a beta, let's me hear how many time you need to >> polish code and prepare tests in public. I will post release plan... > > I need very little time, just another weekend or so to implement settings > persistence in the sharpen batch tool. ok. no problem. > What are your plans framework wise? > Should I just go ahead and make a private storage or do you have something to > reuse already? Do you talk about to factorisize code between editor tool and BQM ? > > The architecture rework for the batch queue manager (using multi-instance > batch tools instead of "singletons") is not on my radar for the beta1 (or > 1.0.0) ok. We can do it later. Later, I would to use OpenMP (or something like that) to parallelize queue execution. Gilles _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
What do you think about sunday 31 may evening to release beta1 ?
Gilles 2009/5/14 Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]>: > 2009/5/13 Matthias Welwarsky <[hidden email]>: >> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 20:31:04 Gilles Caulier wrote: >>> Before to release a beta, let's me hear how many time you need to >>> polish code and prepare tests in public. I will post release plan... >> >> I need very little time, just another weekend or so to implement settings >> persistence in the sharpen batch tool. > > ok. no problem. > >> What are your plans framework wise? >> Should I just go ahead and make a private storage or do you have something to >> reuse already? > > Do you talk about to factorisize code between editor tool and BQM ? > >> >> The architecture rework for the batch queue manager (using multi-instance >> batch tools instead of "singletons") is not on my radar for the beta1 (or >> 1.0.0) > > ok. We can do it later. Later, I would to use OpenMP (or something > like that) to parallelize queue execution. > > > Gilles > Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from mikmach@wp.pl
2009/5/13 Mikolaj Machowski <[hidden email]>:
> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 20:31:04 Gilles Caulier wrote: >> Before to release a beta, let's me hear how many time you need to >> polish code and prepare tests in public. I will post release plan... >> > Name it alpha and everyone will be happy ;) I don't like very well "alpha" stage. It sound like very bugous application. It's not the case. I'm sure that we will not see many feedback. Who will trying alpha application to manages photos without to see a risk to lost data... Gilles _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
In reply to this post by Gilles Caulier-4
On Thursday 14 May 2009 10:02:14 Gilles Caulier wrote:
> 2009/5/13 Matthias Welwarsky <[hidden email]>: > > What are your plans framework wise? > > Should I just go ahead and make a private storage or do you have > > something to reuse already? > > Do you talk about to factorisize code between editor tool and BQM ? Yes, I remember you mentioned some generic code to maintain the settings persistence that you had written but left on your work PC ;) regards, matthias _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
Re: 0.11.0 (or 1.0.0) beta1 ?
|
|
2009/5/14 Matthias Welwarsky <[hidden email]>:
> On Thursday 14 May 2009 10:02:14 Gilles Caulier wrote: >> 2009/5/13 Matthias Welwarsky <[hidden email]>: >> > What are your plans framework wise? >> > Should I just go ahead and make a private storage or do you have >> > something to reuse already? >> >> Do you talk about to factorisize code between editor tool and BQM ? > > Yes, I remember you mentioned some generic code to maintain the settings > persistence that you had written but left on your work PC ;) well, i'm affraid... this code must be on my work computer and it sound like i have cleaned my local digiKam source code for technical reasons and lost this implementation. So, if you have time, feel free to implement it... Gilles _______________________________________________ Digikam-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel |
«
Return to digikam-devel
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |