[Bash-completion-devel] Roadmap proposal

[Guillaume Rousse]

David Paleino a écrit :
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:25:08 +0000 (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
> 
>> David Paleino <d.paleino <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:14:29 +0000 (UTC), Freddy Vulto wrote:
>>>
>>>> [..] maybe we'd better release bash_completion-2 (or ..200902xx) [..]
>>> I was starting a branch for the release process... what version number you
>>> believe is "sane"?
>>>
>>> I'd start at 1.0, (so as not to be necessarily linked to the bash version),
>>> and the "date" format is kinda weird to me.
>> 1.0 is fine with me too - better than date format, as long as the major number
>> is going to be increased once we drop bash-2 support.
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
>> Can you elaborate on which releases you have in mind?
> 
> Well, let me elaborate on the release process I have in mind first. 1.0 is what
> we have now ("master"). As soon as other people reply with ok (I won't wait for
> everyone to reply, but just two people out of 7 isn't fair), I will:
> 
> 1) branch bash-completion-<version>, that's feature-frozen. Only bugfixes go
> there (cherry-picked from "master").
> 2) we establish a freeze period. Let's say two-three days? Up to a week,
> however, just to find bugs and fix them on time.
> 3) we release the tarball, update the webpage, put it on Alioth, [..]. Maybe a
> make-tarball script would be good (i.e. copying debian/changelog to
> CHANGES, removing debian/, fixing things, using sed to dynamically substitute
> version number, ...)
I can eventually provide an automake-based makefiles suite. That is 
quite overkill here, but with just a few lines of code, we'll have 
robust and standard 'make install', 'make dist', and 'make distcheck' 
targets.