It is not always clear what should go in the 0.98.5 maintenance branch.
For example, is the _png.cpp patch by Tobias, committed by Andrew, a
bug fix or a new feature? I would have said the latter, but I can see
arguments either way.
More generally, how long do we need to keep updating this maintenance
I have been meaning to do a release from the branch for some time, but
haven't gotten it done. Charlie, if you are out there and have some
time, please forge ahead. Otherwise, I will devote some time to it
next week when I am back from vacation.
In general, only very clear bugfixes which are unlikely to result in
"surprise" breakages should go in. The _png patch, though a bug fix,
has more of the feel of a feature enhancement, and given its
complexity, should probably not go in to the branch unless someone
makes a compelling case (though I am very excited to see it go in to
As soon as we get the branch release out, I would like to push to get
a trunk release out as soon as it is ready, and all the remaining
outstanding features that people are working on get put in. Then the
trunk will become the branch, and the branch will be finished, either
removed or allowed to linger for a while and then removed. But I
think this should be the last release of this branch, one suitable for
debian and other packagers who release infrequently because it should
be very stable at this point.
And is there a release schedule in mind? Any prospect of more
thoroughly automating official releases and of adding svn snapshot
releases? And of following numpy's buildbot example?
I don't think I can help with any of this; I am just casting about to
see if there might be someone on the list who is interested and can
break loose some time.
We are not that far away, at least for src snapshots, os x binaries,
and the docs. The windows binary would take some work, as would a
linux binary, eg a debian package. I am definitely for it, but one or
more of us will have to step up and push it through.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> wrote: