[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gallery-devel
Subject:    Re: [Gallery-devel] 2.1.1 rls - integrity check complains
From:       Bharat Mediratta <bharat () menalto ! com>
Date:       2006-04-16 21:13:17
Message-ID: 4442B36D.5070302 () menalto ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


2.1.1a is out, and fixes this problem.  The news story is updated:
http://gallery.menalto.com/gallery_2.1.1_released

I'm out for a bit, if you see anything else wrong please fix it :-)

-Bharat

Bharat Mediratta wrote:
> Alan Harder wrote:
> 
>> joe7@site.hu wrote:
>>
>>> Just got this from #gallery-support & forums:
>>> It seems the integrity check of the upgrader complains about 
>>> modules/imageblock/module.inc !
>>
>>
>>
>> The last rev in BRANCH_2_1 of the MANIFEST is correct..
>> unfortunately the previous rev has RELEASE_2_1_1 tag.
>>
>>> Would it be possible to simply fix this and upgrade downloadable 
>>> packages or should we/i post a note about it on gmc as an 'safe to 
>>> ignore' thing?
>>
>>
>>
>> bharat?
> 
> 
> Doh.  I forgot to move that tag and didn't do the final checkoff on it. 
>  I'll roll 2.1.1a packages and g2-module-imageblock-1.0.8a and push them 
> out to sf.net and update all the links appropriately.  Should be fixed 
> within the hour.
> 
> I also haven't notified gallery-announce yet, so I'll do that after this 
> goes live.
> 
>>>> OUTSTANDING ISSUES:
>>>> * All the modules that got bumped in 2.1.1 have the same version number
>>>>   (or at least had the same version number in HEAD).  This means that
>>>>   we may have some issues upgrading from 2.1 -> 2.1.1 -> HEAD 
>>>> because it
>>>>   will look like nothing has changed.  Somebody needs to figure out
>>>>   what's different between BRANCH_2_1 and HEAD for those modules and
>>>>   then bump the HEAD version of those modules.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see any difference from our normal operations of not bumping
>> plugin versions for every change.. any plugins that have changed
>> will get a version bump for 2.2 (see SVN Migration page, I have a
>> script for this now)
> 
> 
> I guess this is ok.  My fear is that we're cherrypicking some stuff from 
> HEAD to push into the modules in BRANCH_2_1 which means that we can have 
> two different modules out there with the same version, but which contain 
> different things.  I guess this isn't that different from what we have 
> now, I just fear that it can lead us into problems.  I'd rather see us 
> use a 4th number (like we do for core) for all modules when we merge 
> them into a branch so that we know exactly what we're working with.
> 
>>>> * We should add a trailing newline to Maps.inc files so that future
>>>>   patch releases don't have the problem where we fail integrity checks.
>>
>>
>> I'll take care of this one.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Bharat
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live 
> webcast
> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
> __[ g a l l e r y - d e v e l ]_________________________
> 
> [ list info/archive --> http://gallery.sf.net/lists.php ]
> [ gallery info/FAQ/download --> http://gallery.sf.net ]




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
__[ g a l l e r y - d e v e l ]_________________________

[ list info/archive --> http://gallery.sf.net/lists.php ]
[ gallery info/FAQ/download --> http://gallery.sf.net ]
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]