I take this as "things are fine, as
they are in staging". Not sure how this effects "release reviews",
Wayne, but what is in staging now, is the same thing that was in Kepler
SR2 (i.e. already released).
At least, going by feature names/versions
and bundle names/versions. The following are the feature names/versions:
I'll also note that in the 5.1 "contribution
attempt" there's an error that invalidates the aggregation build ...
something about a feature missing that is named in some category.
It seems clear we should go with what
we have, for Luna, and if the DLTK project wants to do something else for
Luna SR1, they need to actively work with the "Simultaneous Release"
projects that make use of them, and participate on a regular, predictable
basis, so adequate testing, etc. can be done. I also suspect (though, know
nothing of details) that if there have been "bug fixes only"
that "5.0.1" would be more appropriate for Luna SR1, and if there
are new features or APIs, that Mars would be more appropriate.
There may be many other questions about
the viability of the DLTK project as a whole (given lack of activity and
communication) but, I think for Luna, we know what to do.
I will plan on reverting the commit
in Luna, just to be clear on our plans for Luna, and opened Bug 437381
to track that.
If DLTK project wants to participate
in Luna SR1 or Mars, they will be expected to be more active, timely, and
Simon Bernard <sbernard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cross project issues
06/13/2014 05:28 AM
DLTK in Luna RC4
LDT (Koneki) depends on DLTK.
We never test it on DLTK 5.1. (We never found a repository to test it,
it seems available since June 11th or 12th)
There no problem for us to go with DLTK 5.0. It seems more reasonable.
Le 12/06/2014 21:31, Wayne Beaton a écrit :
We noticed that DTLK updated their aggregation file only just this week
to point at their 5.1 bits. Too late, I'm afraid to make it into the RC4
build (which currently includes their 2013 "5.0" bits) and EPP
Which Luna projects consume DLTK? (PDT and who else?)