gimp 2.8.0 rc1, gimp plugins

[Artur Wroblewski]

2012/4/20 Bartosz Świątek <shadzik at gmail.com>:
> W dniu 20 kwietnia 2012 01:03 użytkownik Artur Wroblewski
> <wrobell at pld-linux.org> napisał:
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Caleb Maclennan <caleb at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>>> 2012/4/19 Artur Wroblewski <wrobell at pld-linux.org>:
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> i would like to move gimp 2.8.0 rc1 from DEVEL to HEAD.
>>>>
>>>> any argument against?
>>>>
>>>> btw. we have some quite old gimp plugins on ftp, i.e. build in 2010, 2009. shall
>>>> they be removed, rebuilt?
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> w
>>>
>>> Yes. That is an RC for a major release version and there aren't any
>>> show-stopper bugs or comparability issues in the previous release that
>>> would force us to skip ahead to get the bugs ironed out. At this point
>>> I'm having a heck of a time keeping stable systems using TH which is
>>> supposed to be STABLE. Adding more backwards incompatible libraries to
>>> the dependency mess is going to make that worse, not better.
>>
>> Ac is stable release for which we have appropriate branch and Th
>> is in constant development mode, isn't it?
>>
>> I am asking because I am bit lost with above arguments - do we
>> have some new rules for Th? When they changed? :P
>
> You tell us. AFAIK official rules state that no Betas and RCs are
> allowed on HEAD and exceptions need to be discussed. I can't remember
> to have read any new rules lately that differ from what I just said,
> so if you know something more, please share it with us.

I do not remember discussing such rule. But I remember that
if a package on HEAD has non-integral release number (i.e. 0.1)
then it means that the work is still in progress.

>>
>> To repeat myself "cvs head != Th ftp". If you send it to the builders,
>> then it is your fault.
>
> In general CVS != FTP, but as we all know the first step to get a
> package to main FTP is to put it on CVS HEAD. Putting there unstable
> versions is very confusing.

The release number is not confusing, IMHO.

>> Let me rephrase - is anyone planning any work related to Gimp 2.6
>> on CVS HEAD in near future? If not, then I will do the merge from
>> DEVEL (but please let non-IRC people know if any rules changed
>> regarding Th and what's the plan).
>
> That's not an argument. Noone's gonna know if for some reason Gimp 2.6
> will need to be patched, fixed, rebuilt or our chief only knows what
> else. What's the problem with having an _unstable_ version on DEVEL
> anyway?
> What is so importand in this version to you so desperately need to put
> it on HEAD?

The gegl and babl are stable now and they are on HEAD. IMHO, it is time to
_start_ (as in CVS) migrating to gimp 2.8... until you know that there is
something wrong with 2.6 and will need fixing soon (I assume no as there
are ftp related arguments only so far)?

Regards,

w