<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">criezy,<br>
      <br>
      Thank you so much for your kind words and assistance with the
      release! And another *huge* thank you to everyone who has been
      helping to tear through the release blockers list with testing and
      bug fixes. We’ve gone from around 35 identified crashes, lock-ups,
      and memory leaks down to just 9 as of today.<br>
      <br>
      For the schedule, I think that a balanced approach will be to just
      stick to the original release date unless we suddenly get a swarm
      of new critical bugs and decide that we need to push the date to
      take care of them.<br>
      <br>
      Per a brief conversation on IRC I was hoping to not have any
      master branch freeze, but I realised later that until the new
      Buildbot is finished we’re stuck keeping the master branch frozen
      since that is the only branch that Buildbot builds right now, and
      we rely on Buildbot for publishing new testing releases for users.<br>
      <br>
      Best,<br>
      <br>
      On 2017-11-22 18:19, Thierry Crozat wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:E5767AD9-9A35-45A1-B3DC-B062E9F9D05E@scummvm.org">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <div class="">All,</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">First I would like to thank snover for his amazing
        work getting the release process started by reviewing open
        tickets, making a list of blockers, and getting some of those
        fixed. As a reminder the release blockers list is available at
        <<a href="https://bugs.scummvm.org/report/16" class=""
          moz-do-not-send="true">https://bugs.scummvm.org/report/16</a>>.</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">It was also decided that the release version will be
        2.0.0, which seemed to be the most popular choice, and snover
        made the changes in master yesterday while I updated the wiki.</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">Today we made one more step by announcing testing.</div>
      <div class="">That also probably means that we should all consider
        the trunk to be frozen for about a week until the 2.0 branch is
        created.</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">I would like to come back to the original release
        scheduled proposed by Eugene though as we have announced testing
        10 days later than what was in that proposal. Delaying the rest
        of the schedule by 10 days would bring us perilously close to
        Christmas to get the release builds done, and it may be a busy
        period for porters and packagers. A lot of work as been done
        already to stabilise the release, and we could try to compress a
        bit the testing period and either stick to the original schedule
        , or delay it by one week. Another option would be to delay the
        release until mid January.</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">Option 1: Stick with original release date</div>
      <div class="">------------</div>
      <div class="">
        <div class="">November 12: Release cycle starts, testing
          announced</div>
        <div class="">November 22: List of bugs published. Trunk is
          frozen</div>
        <div class="">November 29: branch, trunk unfrozen, porters
          contacted</div>
        <div class="">December 8, Fri: tagging, tarballs uploaded,
          porters start submitting their builds</div>
        <div class="">December 17: Release</div>
      </div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">
        <div class="">Option 2: Delay by one week</div>
        <div class="">------------</div>
        <div class="">
          <div class="">November 12: Release cycle starts, testing
            announced</div>
          <div class="">November 22: List of bugs published. Trunk is
            frozen</div>
          <div class="">November 29: branch, trunk unfrozen, porters
            contacted</div>
          <div class="">December 15, Fri: tagging, tarballs uploaded,
            porters start submitting their builds</div>
          <div class="">December 24: Release</div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">
        <div class="">Option 3: Delay release to mid-January</div>
        <div class="">------------</div>
        <div class="">
          <div class="">November 12: Release cycle starts, testing
            announced</div>
          <div class="">November 22: List of bugs published. Trunk is
            frozen</div>
          <div class="">November 29: branch, trunk unfrozen, porters
            contacted</div>
          <div class="">January 5, Fri: tagging, tarballs uploaded,
            porters start submitting their builds</div>
          <div class="">January 14: Release</div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">What do you think?</div>
      <div class="">Do you have any other suggestions?</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">Thierry</div>
      <br class="">
      <div>
        <blockquote type="cite" class="">
          <div class="">On 21 Nov 2017, at 01:16, Colin Snover <<a
              href="mailto:scummvm-devel@zetafleet.com" class=""
              moz-do-not-send="true">scummvm-devel@zetafleet.com</a>>
            wrote:</div>
          <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
          <div class="">
            <div class="">All,<br class="">
              <br class="">
              As I have been working today on release prep, I have noted
              several<br class="">
              places where the 1.10 version number has already been
              used, such as the<br class="">
              wiki and forum and (of course) in the version numbers for
              the daily<br class="">
              builds which are baked into the executable. Does anyone
              have an<br class="">
              authoritative list of all the places where this would need
              to be<br class="">
              changed? I don’t really want to delay the release any
              longer on this,<br class="">
              but it seems like from reading feedback on this thread
              that most<br class="">
              everyone would like to change the version number for the
              next release,<br class="">
              and I don’t want to disappoint! (Unless getting the
              release out is more<br class="">
              important to everyone, in which case I will just leave it
              as-is and<br class="">
              we’ll roll with 1.10!)<br class="">
              <br class="">
              Thanks,<br class="">
              <br class="">
              On 2017-11-11 04:46, John Willis wrote:<br class="">
              <blockquote type="cite" class="">Hi All,<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <blockquote type="cite" class="">Now, both SCI3 and
                  Starship Titanic bugfixing is mainly over, thus <br
                    class="">
                  I'd like to propose to launch the 1.10.0. Maybe we
                  should call it <br class="">
                  2.0.0? <br class="">
                </blockquote>
                Calling it 2.0.0 gets my vote as it is a milestone in
                terms of supported games.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                <blockquote type="cite" class="">I am not sure we can
                  get enough testers at this time, but I'm leaving <br
                    class="">
                  it open, and propose two schedules: with and without
                  the extensive <br class="">
                  testing period. <br class="">
                  <br class="">
                  With testing: <br class="">
                </blockquote>
                With testing gets my vote. <br class="">
                <br class="">
                As a 'lapsed' porter trying to get his old ports fixed
                up I can see the merit in contacting porters/builders
                directly a little earlier than usual to try and ensure
                we have the widest set of builds ready to go. Especially
                if we go with a 2.0 release.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                Just my 2 pence, either way a new release seems like a
                good plan and is timely.<br class="">
                <br class="">
                Regards,<br class="">
                <br class="">
                John<br class="">
                <br class="">
                _______________________________________________<br
                  class="">
                Scummvm-devel mailing list<br class="">
                <a href="mailto:Scummvm-devel@lists.scummvm.org"
                  class="" moz-do-not-send="true">Scummvm-devel@lists.scummvm.org</a><br
                  class="">
                <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel">http://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel</a><br
                  class="">
              </blockquote>
              <br class="">
              <br class="">
              -- <br class="">
              Colin Snover<br class="">
              <a href="https://zetafleet.com" class=""
                moz-do-not-send="true">https://zetafleet.com</a><br
                class="">
              <br class="">
              <br class="">
              _______________________________________________<br
                class="">
              Scummvm-devel mailing list<br class="">
              <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Scummvm-devel@lists.scummvm.org">Scummvm-devel@lists.scummvm.org</a><br class="">
              <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel">http://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel</a><br
                class="">
            </div>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br class="">
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Scummvm-devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Scummvm-devel@lists.scummvm.org">Scummvm-devel@lists.scummvm.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel">http://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
Colin Snover
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://zetafleet.com">https://zetafleet.com</a></pre>
  </body>
</html>