Re: Plans for ITK version 4
Steve,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Steve M. Robbins <steve@sumost.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>
>> > Since it's released, I was planning to upload straight to 'unstable'.
>> > Do you think there's a need to stage in 'experimental' first?
>>
>> ITK will be build against gdcm. I would prefer to see gdcm transition
>> (#657288) to have ended (ie. gdcm 2.2.x into unstable) first.
>
> I'm not sure what your concern is; can you elaborate?
Just trying to avoir another set of #(655783 655784 655785 655786
655787 655788) because ITK will be build using gdcm 2.0
> ITK 4 builds with the gdcm in unstable so if it builds OK with the new
> gdcm, I don't see it will hinder the latter's transition.
The fact that ITK builds against 2.0 does not mean it builds fine with
2.2 from experimental. I would really like to have feedback on that
combination just as fast as you for ITK
> Moreover, I expect ITK 4 to be undergoing repeated source uploads to
> get it building everywhere (3.20.0 got up to rev -17) so it's likely
> that gdcm 2.2 gets into 'testing' before ITK 4 does for this reason
> alone.
As said above, during this time, people will get another set of RC
bugs identical to #655783 and al.
Can you just do at least one upload to experimental first ?
Thanks,
--
Mathieu
Reply to: