On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 15:03 +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote: > On 08/25/2011 05:28 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > > > You're probably referring to the updates 2.2->2.4 in '07 and 2.4->2.6 in > > '08 but please keep in mind that we're stuck with 2.6.x as the stable > > branch since then, so there's no reason to be gloomy about the Fedora > > side just yet. > > I remember how we tracked the 2.3-2.4 development in Rawhide, which > allowed me at the time to write articles (previews, tutorials) based on > our official packages and, of course, allowed the entire community to > contribute with testing and feedback. We didn't track development at that time, these were release candidates of 2.4, see the RPM changelog: ... * Wed Oct 24 2007 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2:2.4.0-1 ... * Fri Sep 07 2007 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2:2.4.0-0.rc3.2 ... * Fri Sep 07 2007 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2:2.4.0-0.rc3.1 ... * Fri Sep 07 2007 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2:2.4.0-0.rc2.2 ... * Tue Sep 04 2007 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2:2.4.0-0.rc2.1 ... * Thu Aug 16 2007 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2:2.4.0-0.rc1.1 ... * Fri Jul 13 2007 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2:2.2.17-1 ... These versions already used the same file names as proper 2.4.x did, right now I know that much of this _will_ change when 2.8 is released, which incidentally impacts packaging the most (rather than normal code changes). > > While we mightn't have had an explicit update policy for Fedora in the > > time, these packages only went in after thorough testing on top of that > > upstream managed to keep things as backwards-compatible as could be > > expected -- the built-in scheme interpreter became a bit more strict in > > 2.6, which was a documented break with 2.4 which could easily be fixed > > by fixing affected 3rd party scripts. > > Testing is the "magic" word, we want to test it. Foremost, I want to have packages tested that actually have a more than even chance of ending up in the stable release. Right now I don't feel as confident about getting 2.8 in time for F-17 as I felt about 2.4 for F-8. If you look at the development schedule on http://tasktaste.com/projects/Enselic/gimp-2-8 you'll notice some fairly sizable tasks left which account for 15-18 workdays of people who'll likely do this in their spare time, which is projected right now for about 81 realtime days from now. I haven't seen much activity on the listed topics though in the last time (not critiquing upstream devs here, I'm a bit surprised to see only 2 real tasks left on that schedule), so this might slip even a bit more. "It's ready when it's ready" and all that. Rest assured that I'll push packages when we get to a point where inclusion is probable. > > Considering that upstream to a large part isn't interested in working on > > 2.6 anymore -- the last commit by a core developer to this branch was in > > February this year -- I don't expect to see another 2.6 bugfix release. > > As well, installing both stable versions side-by-side isn't an option as > > you can't install them into the same prefix: the libraries have the same > > SONAME, the new ones are expected to be ABI compatible. Therefore I > > don't see a real alternative to rebasing to 2.8 in stable Fedora > > releases when it finally is available, after thoroughly testing it of > > course (which I already do to a certain extent, I can e.g. confirm that > > the ufraw gimp plugin built with 2.6 works with a private installation > > of current git master). > > In the meantime I feel there is some duplicate effort wasted here: the > maintainer (Nils) is doing his own testing in private, another > contributor (Luya) is struggling (and hitting walls) with building an > external repo, people don't know what and from where to use. I'll think about making "gimp-beta" packages and putting them on fedorapeople, but their relevance for testing in Fedora will be rather limited as they have to be installed into a different prefix (e.g. /opt), so all 3rd party stuff won't work without user intervention (i.e. symlinks into /usr/...). Nils -- Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nils@xxxxxxxxxx nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
