W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > November 2002

[check] Progress Towards Release...

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:09:11 +0100
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A01060006-1022-FADB2DA4FFF011D6ACB000039300CF5C@[]>

Looks like Beta 3 is more or less solid, judging from the feedback coming
in after its release. Given this is the case (as opposed to just apathy
;D), this is probably the most solid release of Validator to date. I have
only one open issue from www-validator (which is less then I've had, ever)
and mainly packaging and release related issues in Bugzilla.

This is mostly thanks to the contributions from Ville, Nick, and Liam; the
excellent support from Olivier; and the fine testing provided by Bjoern.
Many many thanks all of you!

In light of that I think it's time to push out a final release.

I have some final cleanup to do (change the "What's New", rip stuff out of
todo.html, etc.), but other then that I think I'll tag the final release in
CVS ASAP so we can begin packaging and release, with the final update of
:80 tomorrow or Tuesday.

Please let me know either way whether you agree with this asessment!

I plan to make 0.6.0 into a branch in CVS once we tag the final version.
That way we can keep bug fixing etc. on that branch and keep the trunk for
future development. This will break the automatic generation of the
tarball, but since we're now making real releases we can do that manually.

If anyone feels the need for a quick rundown of how to work with branches
in CVS I can put together a mini-howto for it. Let me know!

BTW, one of the first thing to go into HEAD once the release is made is
probably new configuration parser code from Ville. Concurrently with that
we may take the opportunity to rearrange the directory layout in CVS and
prune some old gunk that isn't needed any more.

Since you've done a little thinking on this Ville, perhaps you want to do a
little braindump we can use as a basis for the reorg?

Of course we are the good guys! We define what is good and evil. All other
definitions are wrong, and possibly the product of a deranged imagination.
                                                         -- Stephen Harris
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2002 16:09:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:23 UTC