[Scummvm-devel] Proposed schedule for 1.10.0

[Arnaud Boutonné]

Hi guys,

I also think that it's time for a new release, and I have no strong opinion
concerning the version number.
I was just wondering this past day if a v2.0.0 version wouldn't require
some additional testing, or maybe an intermediate stable release (a bit
like an alpha, to give users some time to find glitches?) so that it's as
stable as possible.

Kudos to everybody involved in the support of the new titles (and the new
builds), this release will be awesome :)

Best regards,
Arnaud



On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Thierry Crozat <criezy at scummvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It seems that there was already some good testing for the new games, but
> maybe a short testing period would not be a bad idea? That would also leave
> a bit more time for porters to work on their port if needed. Otherwise if
> we go with the short schedule, maybe it could be extended by one week with
> tagging on December 1st  as it seems a bit tight for porters?
>
> As for the version number, I don't have a strong opinion, but the addition
> of all those SCI games seems a good occasion to bump the major version and
> go with 2.0.0.
>
> I can help a bit with the release process as well, but this weekend
> (November 11 and 12, or maybe only on the Saturday) I am planning to go to
> the AdventureX convention in London, so I won't have much time.
>
> Thierry
>
>
> On 7 Nov 2017, at 23:12, Colin Snover <scummvm-devel at zetafleet.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It has been a while since a release so I would lean slightly toward the
> faster schedule. Dafioram has already done a lot of testing, and as a
> result, things seem like they are in a good place. Porters may need a
> little more time than usual to fix up their GraphicsManager implementations
> since that API was changed for this release, though I don’t know if that
> needs to impact the schedule (I already emailed about this a while ago, so
> it’s hopefully not news to anyone).
>
> I would like to get optimised builds in the hands of others to verify
> whether anything more needs to be done for <https://bugs.scummvm.org/
> ticket/10248> <https://bugs.scummvm.org/ticket/10248> (this is one of the
> reasons I have been working on Buildbot lately). Testing locally I think
> that normal compiler optimisations solve the problem, and it would be nice
> to have others verify this too. In any case it doesn’t block a release
> since there are already mitigations in place (the configurable audio buffer
> size) that end-users can apply if needed.
>
> For the release process, I will assist on reviewing open tickets and
> communicate on IRC about this to coordinate.
>
> With regards to versioning, that’s a can of worms! Since ScummVM isn’t a
> library that needs to communicate API compatibility, semver doesn’t really
> apply here, so to me it would seem appropriate to use some other versioning
> system like year.month, or just major.patch, for simplicity. But I have no
> strong opinion in any case, so would encourage anyone that has a stronger
> opinion to say why.
>
> Best,
>
> On 2017-11-07 01:22, Eugene Sandulenko wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> Now, both SCI3 and Starship Titanic bugfixing is mainly over, thus I'd
> like to propose to launch the 1.10.0. Maybe we should call it 2.0.0?
>
> I am not sure we can get enough testers at this time, but I'm leaving it
> open, and propose two schedules: with and without the extensive testing
> period.
>
> With testing:
>
> November 12: Release cycle starts, testing announced, list of bugs
> published. Trunk is frozen
> November 19: branch, trunk unfrozen, porters contacted
> December 8, Fri: tagging, tarballs uploaded, porters start submitting
> their builds
> December 17: Release
>
> Without testing:
>
> November 12: branch, list of critical bugs published, porters contacted
> November 24, Fri: tagging, tarballs uploaded, porters start submitting
> their builds
> December 3: Release
>
> Which schedule to choose? If we chose without testing, then I anticipate
> 1.10.1 (2.0.1?) in mid-January and perhaps .2 in February/March.
>
> What about the version number? Should we switch to 2.0.0 since all SCUMM
> and SCI games are supported?
>
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scummvm-devel mailing listScummvm-devel at lists.scummvm.orghttp://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel
>
>
> --
> Colin Snoverhttps://zetafleet.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scummvm-devel mailing list
> Scummvm-devel at lists.scummvm.org
> http://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scummvm-devel mailing list
> Scummvm-devel at lists.scummvm.org
> http://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.scummvm.org/pipermail/scummvm-devel/attachments/20171108/9e043787/attachment.html>