[sword-devel] which engine sources to use

[Troy A. Griffitts]

1.6.x has been dubbed a non-API-breaking/binary-compat stable branch. 
If you want to call that a bug-fix branch, great.  We are in a phase of 
development currently which doesn't require a branch.  We are fixing 
bugs, optimizing, and improving filter support, etc.  These are all 
things which will be released in the 1.6.x thread of releases.  As soon 
as we decide we need to commit something that breaks API/binary 
compatibility, then we'll branch 1.6.x and continue 1.7.x on HEAD.

Hope that's good news,
	-Troy.



Jonathan Marsden wrote:
> Manfred Bergmann wrote:
> 
>> Now that 1.6.0 is out I'd like to know what you propose to use as source.
>> Until now I have sticked to the Subversion trunk HEAD but since new
>> development is probably going on there this might not be the best idea
>> to always have a stable version.
>> Will there be a 1.6 branch that can be used where only bug fixes are
>> applied to?
> 
> I'd love to see that (because it is IMO a good way to do things, and
> also, more pragmatically, because it makes it easier for packagers to
> pick up and apply useful bug fixes!).
> 
> However, the traditional SWORD approach seems to be that no-one among
> the SWORD developers is able and willing to support a bug-fix-only
> branch, so there is only one branch at any one time.
> 
> For Debian and Ubuntu, we packaged SWORD 1.6.0 plus a couple of osis2mod
> bugfixes that were committed just after 1.6.0, plus our own "get rid of
> all those nasty compiler warnings" patches that are not (yet?) in SWORD svn.
> 
> For now, I think people (like you and like me!) who want "SWORD 1.6.0 +
> bugfixes" have to go through the svn commits since 1.6.0 and hand pick
> what they want to use.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page