Re: Project Planning

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--===============0824902524661916156==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="04jsFejIhiAXUxX7JQwxjNdKwnd37R7QX"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--04jsFejIhiAXUxX7JQwxjNdKwnd37R7QX
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ikgjjKGEFKwK5nNIlMB3Uf6PE8B0oRqkQ"
From: "Thomas A. F. Thorne" <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Anders_Bj=c3=b6rklund?= <[email protected]>,
 "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Project Planning
References: <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

--ikgjjKGEFKwK5nNIlMB3Uf6PE8B0oRqkQ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank you for clearing up the misunderstandings I had.=20


On 13/10/16 20:18, Anders Bj=C3=B6rklund wrote:
> Something like a road map would be nice, to see what the difference is.=

> Maybe 3.2 should have been forked even earlier in history, I dunno...
That would be nice and might be a bit of work.  I can try and skim back
over the commit history and see what major features are in since the 3.1
release we have marked.  It would be quite nice to fill in some of the
release notes in GitHub too so I will try and do that based on older
documents and changeset too.   Once we can see the past perhaps we can
plan for the future.=20
> But it would be nice to do another "stable" release after distcc-3.1.
> Which is from 2008 already.
That is what I see most people asking for.  I am not sure there are new
features the core program needs to do.  If we were going to go for a
snazzy dynamic system with (web) GUIs I think it would need to be
facilitated by a suit of micro-services in the modern and classic UNIX
style.=20
> Many stay off the distcc-3.2rc1, because of the silly release suffix.
> And that was back in 2011 ?
I am more familiar with Semantic like visioning as described in
http://semver.org/ so would be quite happy to switch to that.  Perhaps
the first job should be to release a 3.1.1 release as an updated
stable.  Numbers and names are not that important as long as people can
understand their intent.  I am happy to go with whatever the group feels
would best fit.=20

Looking at this I realise I probably should have made three separate
responses so we would have a Roadmap, Stable and Version Numbering
thread.  This list does not have a high volume though.  People can
narrow the scope on reply if they feel the need.

I shall try and scribble some release notes before months end and get
back to you all.

--=20
Thomas A. F. Thorne <[email protected]>=20
--
ASCII ribbon campaign ( )
 - against HTML email  X=20
             & vCards / \
--



--ikgjjKGEFKwK5nNIlMB3Uf6PE8B0oRqkQ--

--04jsFejIhiAXUxX7JQwxjNdKwnd37R7QX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYAJBzAAoJEPXLKKkUazGAzO4H/ityT2s+65OGd9C+E2LN2z+4
YA5M620LUN/W7/EZUdiFU2Y3iT/XPDS2b7szaNaWx+EVuHkCpSP4e++yjCR1z0nu
m9ZuJczlDsLOrIVH/Vq949t6zrlEsOyRNHUdwyQjB4wGmML3NTOYqHY5Eb6mxL4j
WqCQHf2h5QwAyFznx9fwIEJXyNcGc1mEdj4n51hYR6u8/nGgnLHdiiQ3IBfbiKlr
mar9IAPB5r/itIv49JLINVNzonHuf3Te1ktGU/u4JsMRXwsCzpTkpErpIwt1lDu9
pdyS1ueGzeKiSR8e9ydahyDkMWnlSONUMsbdxc8fwjQmqgxxPT1ipITDfqZOwzQ=
=r0Bh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--04jsFejIhiAXUxX7JQwxjNdKwnd37R7QX--


--===============0824902524661916156==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline

X18KZGlzdGNjIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9kaXN0Y2Muc2FtYmEub3Jn
LwpUbyB1bnN1YnNjcmliZSBvciBjaGFuZ2Ugb3B0aW9uczoKaHR0cHM6Ly9saXN0cy5zYW1iYS5v
cmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9kaXN0Y2M=

--===============0824902524661916156==--