The next version of Bazaar is out. Yeay. 1.0rc1 (would have been called 0.93, but we won't go there) is the first of what will continue to be monthly (ish) releases leading towards what will be 1.0 [I expect there to be 3-9 rcN over the next 3-9 months, what an amazing coincidence]. Anyway, bump requested! AfC
(In reply to comment #0) > The next version of Bazaar is out. Yeay. Hooray indeed. > 1.0rc1 (would have been called 0.93, but we won't go there) is the first of > what will continue to be monthly (ish) releases leading towards what will be > 1.0 [I expect there to be 3-9 rcN over the next 3-9 months, what an amazing > coincidence]. Anyway, bump requested! I've never seen portage with an RC of bzr in its overlay, but good luck :) I wasn't aware of the 1.0 RC schedule, though. I have a version of 1.0_rc1 in my overlay right now, and associated bumped versions of compatible plugins (including bzrtools) will follow later tonight: https://launchpad.net/bzr-gentoo-overlay/
(In reply to comment #1) > I've never seen portage with an RC of bzr That's what I'm trying to tell you. These are not release candidates in the sense of "and we'll release it next week if all is well". In reality the next few releases are 1.0rc1 == 0.93 1.0rc2 == 0.94 ... and you can expect them about 1 per month. There's no schedule (this is free software, yo) but 1.0 is *well* off, at least so long as they can keep playing marketing and making-management-happy games. AfC
(In reply to comment #2) > That's what I'm trying to tell you. These are not release candidates in the > sense of "and we'll release it next week if all is well". In reality the next > few releases are > > 1.0rc1 == 0.93 > 1.0rc2 == 0.94 > ... > > and you can expect them about 1 per month. There's no schedule (this is free > software, yo) but 1.0 is *well* off, at least so long as they can keep playing > marketing and making-management-happy games. Did they backpedal? Reference: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2007q4/035146.html
Huh. I guess so. My source was "a senior official in the administration" and reliable. {shrug} Anyway, they're doing heavy testing at the moment, and it'd be nice to help them out with that by getting 1.0rcX packaged up. AfC
Well, bzr 1.0 is out now. It would be good to get it packaged so we can finally start contributing to testing it for them. AfC
I'd like to note two other things: 1. bzrtools 1.0.0 is also out. 2. With the release of pyrex-0.9.6.4, the -no-pyrex patch is no longer *required* for those people who choose to run unstable arches. See http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198330 for details.
(In reply to comment #6) > 1. bzrtools 1.0.0 is also out. That's nice, but it's not really terribly relevant to bzr itself, and is certainly not something that needs to hold up getting bzr rev-bumped. Perhaps you could open a separate bug report if bzrtools is important to you. AfC
(In reply to comment #6) > I'd like to note two other things: > > 1. bzrtools 1.0.0 is also out. > 2. With the release of pyrex-0.9.6.4, the -no-pyrex patch is no longer > *required* for those people who choose to run unstable arches. See > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198330 for details. > bzr-1.0 and bzrtools-1.0.0 are in CVS. The patch you mentioned isn't because of a bug in pyrex, bzr depends on pyrex automagically¹ and upstream ships the generated .c files. Regenerating them provides no advantage and brings the risk that a breakage in pyrex - which happens often - will affect bzr. Last but not least, thanks for reporting :) ¹: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/automagic.xml
(In reply to comment #8) > The patch you mentioned isn't because > of a bug in pyrex, bzr depends on pyrex automagically¹ and upstream ships the > generated .c files. That sounds correct. I discussed it with the bzr hackers some weeks ago and they agreed that there was no reason to duplicate their .c generation work, certainly not on Linux. Cheers, AfC
