[sword-devel] Nearness to release

Ben Morgan benpmorgan at gmail.com
Sun Apr 26 20:44:55 MST 2009

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Troy A. Griffitts <scribe at crosswire.org>wrote:

> Jonathan Marsden wrote:
>> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>> Good :)
>> Is there is list of all known release-critical bugs and TODO items
>> somewhere?
> No, the bugtracker is clean now for critical 1.6.x changes, as far as I
> know (right?).  We're only fixing feedback we get on the RCs now.
> The only outstanding issue of which I know is the link bug DM is working on
> with osis2mod, but I'm about to tell him that he probably needs to check the
> ordinal count of his returned ListKey in a different manner in our osis2mod
> utility, so this probably won't be an API change.  I think we're just
> waiting now to bundle locales and v11n systems.  No code changes unless
> someone speaks up about something I've overlooked again.
At the moment, current SVN:
1) won't compile with SWIG (versekey changes - I have a patch for these)
2) Breaks disastrously with SWIG once compiled - segfaulting in lots of
places... (e.g. this code dies in localemgr destructor:
import Sword

I'm trying to track the second one down, but it seems to only occur in the

>  There have now been several commits since 1.6.0RC2... (I'd
>> say exactly now many, but it wasn't tagged... :)
> scribe at scribe-laptop:~/src/sword-1.6.0RC2$ svn log -r {`ls -l
> configure|cut -f6 -d' '`}:HEAD http://crosswire.org/svn/sword/trunk
> :)
>  is it perhaps time for an RC3 and a freeze on all non-essential changes
>> until we can get a
>> final 1.6 "out the door"??
> Yeah, I'd say so.  I'm about to head out to evening service at Church since
> I slept in this morning :) and when I get back, if no one has complained, we
> can bundle an RC3 and hopefully go out the door soon.  I don't consider
> locale or v11n data changes warrant for a new RC, so if we only get those
> changes over the next couple days, let's shoot to release a final on Tuesday
> evening PST.
>  (Creating a branch for the 1.6.0 release, so that new commits intended
>> for 1.6.1 could continue on svn head, would also work well, but that
>> doesn't seem to be the "SWORD way" of doing things).
> :)  Again, this release has undergone a little more testing than usual as
> we're hoping to 'change our ways' with this BRANCH and force ourselves to
> not do API changes in 1.6.x.

> My plan is to continue to work on 1.6.x for a while (months), improving
> speed, filters, and fixing any bugs, and actually USE 1.6.x in some of my
> own apps for a while before starting any API-changing additional features
> which will require a branch of HEAD to 1.6.x, and 1.7.x to continue in HEAD
> at that point.  I don't want to have to branch until we necessarily start
> 1.7.x API-breaking changes; otherwise we have to keep merging 1.6.x changes
> into HEAD, which would make the lines identical till we start 1.7.x work
> anyway.  Though we will definitely TAG 1.6.0 (which is the same as a branch
> anyway in svn-- if we need to change our minds for some odd reason).
How long does that delay mapping between versifications?  I think this is
relatively important to have - especially if modules start being re-released
with av11n - which I would strongly discourage at the moment, seeing as no
frontend yet supports them.

God Bless,
Multitudes, multitudes,
   in the valley of decision!
For the day of the LORD is near
   in the valley of decision.

Giôên 3:14 (ESV)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20090427/0480b925/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the sword-devel mailing list