[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: movabletype-opensource upcoming uploads

Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 01:13:03AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:02:47AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
>>>> I just wanted to check with the release team about the state of
>>>> movabletype-opensource.
>>>> However, ideally I would like to ship the final 4.2 release with lenny.
>>>> Upstream are planning one more release candidate (probably) and then a
>>>> final release towards the end of July. This is after the advertised
>>>> freeze; however I anticipate the delta between rc4 and final to be quite
>>>> small, and to only contain bugfixes.
>>>> Would a freeze exception for rc4 and/or the final release package be
>>>> approved, if required?
>>> It depends on what the changes are, how big they are and how much risk
>>> of breakage there is when the package is frozen... If it are only
>>> bugfixes chances are big we would consider it.
>> 4.2 has now been released, a bit later than hoped.
>> Comparing 4.2~rc4-1 with 4.2-1 is a bit tedious because of a perltidy
>> run by upstream and a large number of translation updates.
>> If we look at the upstream repository
>> http://code.sixapart.com/svn/movabletype/branches/release-42/
>> and generate two diffs representing changes between rc4 and final:
>> r2834:2876
>> r2877:2922
>> (ie ignoring the perltidy) and manually excluding doc/translations
>> changes and changes in the test suite then we get the slightly more
>> palatable diff attached:
>>  37 files changed, 245 insertions(+), 165 deletions(-)
>> Also notable is that Movable Type have mentioned several security issues
>> being fixed in rc5, though they aren't too specific:
>> http://www.movabletype.org/2008/08/movable_type_42_rc5_and_security_updates.html
>> Given all this, the low popcon count and lack of reverse dependencies,
>> and the fact that Six Apart do a *lot* of their own QA, I think that the
>> final package is a suitable candidate for lenny.
> Hi,
> Without wishing to hassle, I just wanted to check that this hadn't been
> forgotten about (since it was a reply to an old thread).
> I'm away for a week from this afternoon in case there are any further
> questions, but the package is otherwise ready to migrate.




Reply to: