Code::Blocks

User forums => Announcements => Topic started by: mandrav on June 15, 2006, 12:33:54 pm

Title: About RC3
Post by: mandrav on June 15, 2006, 12:33:54 pm
Let's get this out of the way first: we 're hereby, once again, postponing the RC3 release for a later date.

On to the "why" now...

RC3 is going to be a major release for Code::Blocks (as good as 1.0 is going to be). We (the C::B devs team) have decided that we have to fix/test a couple of very important subsystems before we can actually release RC3.
We have tried our best to accomplish this inside the planned timeframe but unfortunately we didn't make it.

The bad thing is that we broke our promise again.
The good thing is that we can afford it.

People who want RC3 today, can get tonight's nightly build. It's exactly what would be released as RC3. And as far as support goes, you know very well that we support the nightly builds even more than our last official release (RC2).

So sit back, relax and watch the world cup which is taking place in Germany :).
We promise we will release RC3 soon. Can't give you an exact date though. We did this before (twice) and failed. Maybe strict timeframes are what made us fail before ;).

Estimated time is two-three weeks, but don't hold your breath.

That's all folks.

Take care,
The Code::Blocks Team.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: enex on June 15, 2006, 12:44:24 pm
As long as no one dies in the process, im sure we'll be ok.  8)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Michael on June 15, 2006, 01:04:39 pm
We have tried our best to accomplish this inside the planned timeframe but unfortunately we didn't make it.

The bad thing is that we broke our promise again.
The good thing is that we can afford it.

Hello,

Please take the time you think is necessary. As far I am concerned, I would prefer an high-quality product delivered a bit later :) rather than a rushed one.

Moreover, I think that you (devs team) should be relatively busy people and I really appreciate the efforts and time you are putting in this project.

So, take the time you need :).

So sit back, relax and watch the world cup which is taking place in Germany :).

It is a good suggestion :). Unfortunately I have too much work at the moment :(. Can just check the results in Internet (http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/).

Best wishes,
Michael
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Pecan on June 15, 2006, 03:12:02 pm

So sit back, relax ...


I'm relieved. I've done nothing for the past week but panic over changes, leaks, and segfaults. Whew....

thanks
pecan
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: PDEE on June 15, 2006, 03:43:46 pm
I think Michael got it right, take your time. There is no pont rushing it. We can all wait.

Thank you

PDEE
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: oz on June 15, 2006, 05:00:19 pm
RC3 could be a world cup special release 8)!
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: orefa on June 15, 2006, 05:33:32 pm
The cardinal rules of software development are:
- It can be done well.
- It can be done cheap.
- It can be done on time.
- Pick any two of the above.

Well, the CB team is picking exactly the right two. Way to go, and thank you for continuing to be transparent on your progress, efforts and difficulties. It makes you all the more credible.

Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Blue-Tiger on June 15, 2006, 06:46:02 pm
I think that's a good idea. Also I don't understand why new features keep popping up in the nightlies. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on bug fixing only (as opposed to: introduce new features with new bugs) befor a release? Or maybe create a "stable" and a "developement" branch?
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: orefa on June 15, 2006, 07:07:41 pm
It's easy to understand: new features are cool, exciting, fun to write, and this obviously appeals to the developpers. Debugging is time consuming and tedious and it appeals to nobody. Remember that C::B is a volunteered product, not a commercial one. Keeping developpers interested is essential since they do this for free. But this post and the road map sugggest that tonight's version should mark a feature freeze, then bugs will be worked on as you say, which will lead to RC3 and to the official 1.0 release. This milestone will be exciting it its own right. Later on, more excitement will begin again.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: byo on June 15, 2006, 09:18:50 pm
I think that's a good idea. Also I don't understand why new features keep popping up in the nightlies. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on bug fixing only (as opposed to: introduce new features with new bugs) befor a release? Or maybe create a "stable" and a "developement" branch?

AFAIK this will take place between 1.0 RC3 and 1.0 Final. And according to http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Roadmap_for_version_1.0 (http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Roadmap_for_version_1.0) C::B developers still haven't implemented everything in 1.0 :(.

Personally I would like to see some few more C::B gems before RC3 release ;)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: David Perfors on June 15, 2006, 11:13:02 pm
Yes, just keep on working and when 1.0 Final is released use that as the stable/bugfix branche.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: PsYhLo on June 16, 2006, 10:01:47 am
I'm using SVN builds for two months. So i can wait for RC3 or Final release
But it will be good to put some substitute for that RC2 may be one of the latest nightly builts
because new comers are using that release befor finding out that it has other build greater than that one.
I hope i'm not right but some of that users may be we have lose



sorry for my bad english

I hope you understand me
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Blue-Tiger on June 16, 2006, 10:25:42 am
Yes, just keep on working and when 1.0 Final is released use that as the stable/bugfix branche.

Well, the name "Release Candidate" would imply that no new features are added, so I think it'd be better to branch right after the RC3-Release (of course that's just my humble opinion, I'm not even a CB-developer).
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: phlox81 on June 16, 2006, 03:55:35 pm
Dunno when you gonna release that one (after the worldcup final? :lol: )

But, anyways, Great Job Guys  :D
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: thomas on June 16, 2006, 04:21:13 pm
Dunno when you gonna release that one (after the worldcup final? :lol: )
It has nothing to do with the worldcup final.
N.B.: Even though I live in one of the cities where the world cup takes place, I could not even tell you who is playing! I happen to know that Germany will be in the next round because it was in the news last night, but that's about it ;)

RC3 will be released when it is ready, and that will be when a couple of important issues have been resolved.
Apart from several things that are just unpleasant (and should not go into a RC as known bugs), the two most important open problems are scripting and updating.

1. AngelScript, which we currently use, is a mighty fine thing, but it does not work on the majority of platforms that are otherwise supported by Code::Blocks. This is a very serious limitation.
Yiannis has done a lot of work to make AngelScript 64bit-compatible, but some of the low level internals are beyond his scope, these will have to be fixed by Andreas Jönsson. If and when this will happen is yet unknown to us, we have contacted Andreas about it. If nothing helps, we may have to switch to another script engine.
Obviously, we are not releasing RC3 now only to make another massive change like that a week later, this would be most unwise.

2. Internet updates are currently at a stage which is 90% functional on the client side, minimum functional on the server side, and which has 0% test coverage.
We absolutely want to include the ability to perform updates over the internet, as this will simplify a lot of things, and resolve many problems in the future.
As this is a quite important functionality, we want to be sure it really works reliably.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Game_Ender on June 17, 2006, 06:58:29 am
I think it sad that AS lacks portability but it was a developer choice.  In order to make binding easier you need compiler, platform, and architecture specific assembly.  This is fine if you write that code and keep it up to date.  You could try squirrel  (http://www.squirrel-lang.org/)which appears to very similar but more portable, although with messier bindings.

Internet updates are currently at a stage which is 90% functional on the client side, minimum functional on the server side, and which has 0% test coverage.

Not trying to troll but doing it anyways: Does anything in CB have anything that is unit tested?  I am sure a decent chunk of the SDK could use them with no problem.  We have had this discussion before, but my "code and test" doctirine appeared to be shot down.

P.S.- Yes I do put my money where my mouth is, every non-gui class I make has more test code and doc lines than implementation code lines.  Which I know is not always a good thing and it does get tedious some times.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: David Perfors on June 17, 2006, 07:50:26 pm
AS doesn't get any 64bit support in the near future, so there is decided that C::B is getting another engine, the devs are looking to squirel ;)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: NeverDream on June 17, 2006, 08:02:14 pm
What about Lua?  It's small, fast, and highly portable.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: MortenMacFly on June 17, 2006, 08:30:02 pm
What about Lua?  It's small, fast, and highly portable.
...there are people that see Squirrel as the successor of Lua. ;-)
With regards, Morten.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: thomas on June 18, 2006, 12:07:38 pm
What about Lua?  It's small, fast, and highly portable.
Before this starts off a huge avalanche of proposals ("what about Python, what about Ruby, what about (insert name here)?") let's say that the team discussed the possible alternatives and settled for squirrel/sqplus before it was ever mentioned in public that we might possibly switch to another scripting language.

The one thing that was not certain was if we would switch at all.

Indeed, we would very much have preferred staying with AngelScript, since it is really nice and easy and an excellent performer. If there had been any reasonable estimate that AngelScript would support 64bit architectures any time soon, we would definitively have decided to stick with it as the utmost first choice.

However, we do of course realize that telling the ever growing community of 64bit users that half of the IDE's functionality is not supported on their machines is a no-no.
You can tell them "wait until scripting is ported" for a while, but one day it really has to work, one way or the other. You cannot hold them back for forever.

Squirrel has a good syntax and extremely powerful and cool language features, and is a good performer.
Admitted, it has a few shortcomings, most notably a quite bad documentation and messy function binding (works like in Lua). However, there is sq-plus which wraps all that mess into some templates and a few helper classes, and about documentation... He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone. :)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: David Perfors on June 18, 2006, 02:13:49 pm
and about documentation... He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone. :)
YES!!!! I can trow...


or...


wait a minute, I am a developer to.. so.... I don't WANT to document :mrgreen: (although I am working on the documentation of C::B  :oops)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: rickg22 on June 22, 2006, 10:46:13 pm

Please take the time you think is necessary. As far I am concerned, I would prefer an high-quality product delivered a bit later :) rather than a rushed one.

Just make sure it doesn't become a Duke Nukem Forever :P
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Michael on June 22, 2006, 11:01:52 pm

Please take the time you think is necessary. As far I am concerned, I would prefer an high-quality product delivered a bit later :) rather than a rushed one.

Just make sure it doesn't become a Duke Nukem Forever :P

 :D

I think we will become soon a pleasant surprise :).

Best wishes,
Michael
Title: Expect RC3!
Post by: kylove on June 29, 2006, 04:28:51 am
Expect RC3!
Title: Re: Expect RC3!
Post by: Michael on June 29, 2006, 10:39:53 am
Expect RC3!

Please be patient :).

Best wishes,
Michael
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Conan Kudo on July 08, 2006, 12:11:19 am
I really do not know what to think now, with all the delays in C::B 1.0rc3. I guess I could take this oppertunity to work on some other projects, but C::B is a big gaping hole in many things I do. And I really cannot recommend it until a decent release is made. For now, I'm working on a bunch of NSIS projects, but hopefully in the future, I can install Code::Blocks on my Fedora Core 5 laptop and be happy that it is a release. With as many delays that Code::Blocks has had, I would call this Code::Blocks 1.0 RC final. Or even, Code::Blocks 1.0. Too many changes to warrant calling it 1.0rc3 in my book. I'm prepared for the day Code::Blocks 1.0rc3/rc final/1.0 releases and have my entire build system reconstructed. I don't want to use nightlies on my laptop because it is already cluttered with lots of different build systems and different workings. I have to still get the crosscompile tools for GCC 4.1.x, but i doubt there is such a thing.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Game_Ender on July 08, 2006, 05:40:48 pm
I think the problem is with the version number scheme, it has gotten everyone confused.  Release Candidates are just that, a build which could pretty well become the final build for that version, ie the checksum of the RC3 should/coud be equal to the checksum of 1.0 final.  It appears as if mostly bug fixes are going into the trunk right now, so we are doing pretty good.

I think CB is going to be one of the version number jumping products (not really a bad thing), after all the next version is already called 1.5, which means the release after that will most likely be 2.0.  Frankly I like the way the linux kernel does things with number like: Major.Minor.Bugfix.  You only a new major version if some massive interface breaking changes comes along with a large rewrite of the project.  Minor versions alternate between unstable and stable.  For example the next develpement version of CB would be 1.1.0 only while it was being developed.  After it finished, it would become 1.2.0.  The Bufix part of the number is for any changes or bugfixes that don't break the interface.  In our example you get 1.2.1, 1.2.2 etc.   These number don't roll over after you get to 9, so its perfectly ok to have 1.11.13.  This is also pretty close to how GCC does there release scheme, although I don't think the do the stable/unstable thing for the Minor version number.

No matter how logical the above the is, its still opinion and not a rule.  Many projects, especially those more oriented to users like to jump the version numbers.  Firefox has been doing that recently with it's skip up to 1.5 and soon 2.0.  Code::Blocks is great project and the more I use the more I like it.  I think plenty of people here want a good stable 1.0 release that they can develope some good pluggins against it.  That is why the CB team is working so hard to make sure they get this release right.

Just be patient, and forigve my minor rant on version numbering.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Michael on July 08, 2006, 08:53:49 pm
I really do not know what to think now, with all the delays in C::B 1.0rc3. I guess I could take this oppertunity to work on some other projects, but C::B is a big gaping hole in many things I do. And I really cannot recommend it until a decent release is made. For now, I'm working on a bunch of NSIS projects, but hopefully in the future, I can install Code::Blocks on my Fedora Core 5 laptop and be happy that it is a release. With as many delays that Code::Blocks has had, I would call this Code::Blocks 1.0 RC final. Or even, Code::Blocks 1.0. Too many changes to warrant calling it 1.0rc3 in my book. I'm prepared for the day Code::Blocks 1.0rc3/rc final/1.0 releases and have my entire build system reconstructed. I don't want to use nightlies on my laptop because it is already cluttered with lots of different build systems and different workings. I have to still get the crosscompile tools for GCC 4.1.x, but i doubt there is such a thing.

Hello,

IMHO, the delay of RC3 is justified for one reason or another. C::B devs work hard to provide a very good and usable IDE.

Nightly builds are IMHO not bad at all and you do not need to update each night if you do not want. Moreover, you just need one nightly if you wish and not several. One time, I had RC2 and 4-5 Nightly builds installed on my PC without any troubles.

I think that you can use a nightly for your test. Or wait for the RC3. Should not be so far... :)

Best wishes,
Michael
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: matthewjumpsoffbuildings on July 14, 2006, 02:23:17 am
Awesome - im looking forward to it very much.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: matthewjumpsoffbuildings on July 21, 2006, 05:03:43 am
any news?
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Ceniza on July 21, 2006, 05:30:17 am
None.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: matthewjumpsoffbuildings on July 22, 2006, 06:44:43 am
drat :D
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: PhyloGenesis on July 22, 2006, 09:23:29 am
You know, I'd b****, whine, and complain about it being delayed, but then I think, "How much did I pay for Code::Blocks?  Oh yeah." and then instead I say:

Wow, thank you guys, this program is awesome!  It's exactly what I was looking for to get away from MSVC++ 6.0.  I can't wait for rc3, I'm glad to hear it will be a stable version with many more features.  I like that it is open-source so I can learn from your coding, I love the fact that we can request features, that it has forum support, and that I can write my own plugins.  Finally, of course, I love it all even more because it's totally free!

Hopefully, I won't end up too busy with school to help you guys work on this!
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: matthewjumpsoffbuildings on July 22, 2006, 03:01:29 pm
do you have smilies turned of? i said "drat SMILE" not "drat RANT RAVE WHINGE BITCH". Chill out - i agree with you 100% and have no desire to rush the excellent job being done by the developers - so yea i was joking when i said drat....
Title: RC3 probably when issued?
Post by: kylove on August 01, 2006, 10:06:19 am
RC3 probably when issued?
RC3 probably when issued?
RC3 probably when issued?
RC3 probably when issued?
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: mandrav on August 01, 2006, 10:17:20 am
RC3 probably when issued?
RC3 probably when issued?
RC3 probably when issued?
RC3 probably when issued?

liuke520, I see you 're back. You should know the forum rules by now...
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: cpprooky on August 01, 2006, 11:54:23 am
2 days without Night Build ?
Feels like RC3 is about to come ??  :lol:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Game_Ender on August 01, 2006, 03:42:56 pm
2 days without Night Build ?
Feels like RC3 is about to come ??  :lol:

I think not, it was mostly Berlios being broken (http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=3725.0) that caused the lack of commits, which caused the lack of a nightly being released.
Title: what time the RC3 Release ?
Post by: kylove on September 09, 2006, 09:09:36 am
what time the RC3 Release ?
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Death Knight on September 30, 2006, 01:46:50 am
what time the RC4 Release ?  :lol:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Phatency on November 02, 2006, 09:54:54 am
I really can't understand what these people think RC3 is going to change if they're already using nightly builds :P They're basically waiting for a version which has an installer and the word "stable" stamped on it, whoopee. I can understand the hype in some closed source release, but open source project with daily binary releases?
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: darus on November 03, 2006, 10:44:54 pm
I really can't understand what these people think RC3 is going to change if they're already using nightly builds :P They're basically waiting for a version which has an installer and the word "stable" stamped on it, whoopee. I can understand the hype in some closed source release, but open source project with daily binary releases?

It's not that easy. For example, you're a developer, that owns some project and want it to be supported by CodeBlocks. So, if there is some official version, you could test if your project is compatible with it, then post a label like "CodeBlocks 1.0 compatible" on it. So, it's guaranteed, that if some user downloads Codeblocks 1.0, it will work with your project.

But when new releases come each day (each night, to be more accurate  :) ), and all of them are equal, you can never tell, that your project is compatible with CB. There is always a possibility, that new build will ruin the compatibility.

When new version come with a reasonable intervals, say, once each 6 months, you can update your project to make it compatible with CB once again. But when there are constant changes in CB, supporting compatibility with it becames a burden to third-party projects.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: peso on November 06, 2006, 10:14:19 am
I Agree. The RC3 label is not important, it could be labled "2.0" or "39874" or "Yellowstone" or whatever. The important part is to have a release that is the same for many users. Stability (read "non-changing") is important to avoid rework of integration tests.

If such a label could be applied to a nightly build every 6 months, this would go a long way in this respect.

Of course an official release would be better, but no label - even with high quality code - does not meet this requirement.

Best regards,
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Jewe on November 07, 2006, 01:14:25 pm
The RC3 label is not important
For me it is. my "quality manager" will not let me upgrade my building machine unless its a final or a RC..
so at the moment I am using the nightly and have rc2 on the build...
problem is that I can not open the project files with that rc2 made with the nightly.
so from time to time i need to use the rc2..

is does give you a good impression in how far c::b has come.. :D

oh forgot to mention, its impossible to explain the manager that nightly today is the same as Rc3. no technical background what so ever. more like if(strstr("*version*","RC")) return ok else return not ok.. ;)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: byo on November 08, 2006, 12:21:16 am
For me it is. my "quality manager" will not let me upgrade my building machine unless its a final or a RC..
so at the moment I am using the nightly and have rc2 on the build...
problem is that I can not open the project files with that rc2 made with the nightly.
so from time to time i need to use the rc2..

is does give you a good impression in how far c::b has come.. :D

oh forgot to mention, its impossible to explain the manager that nightly today is the same as Rc3. no technical background what so ever. more like if(strstr("*version*","RC")) return ok else return not ok.. ;)

I agree that "Stable" release may be really important from business point of view. And after stable release, the interest in project may be much bigger - information about such release comes to more people, download servers put it into it's websites and much more.

But on the other hand if we have some delay and still there are people waiting for C::B it leads to the conclusion that people want C::B because of it's quality and/or capabilities, not because there's CURRENTLY no alternative. That looks promising :)

But I hoope that we will reach RC3 soon (even though I can use nightlies and there's much work to do I just can't wait ;) )
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: DC@DR on November 23, 2006, 07:27:44 pm
Hi there,

I'm just new here and I see the first post about RC3 in this thread was there since June, 2006, and now we're in Nov, 2006, and RC3 is still not officially released yet?! That's why I have this really simple question here: when will we have the RC3 rolled out publicly? Thanks :)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: cpprooky on November 23, 2006, 10:54:19 pm
 :D If you read the previous replies to this question in that thread, you'll see that nobody can tell you when RC3 will be released .. but Nightly Builds are a good way to forget about RC3 !!!
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on November 23, 2006, 11:34:56 pm
I have an idea. Probably you have to make an updater from nightly builds and the nightly build with that updater will be the CodeBlocks 1.0!!!

That is not so funny to go everyday to the CB web cite to check and then download the newer version :x.

If users will have automatic updater for most common OS - they will be most happiest users in the wold :lol:.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: kidmosey on November 24, 2006, 07:17:38 am
I have an idea. Probably you have to make an updater from nightly builds and the nightly build with that updater will be the CodeBlocks 1.0!!!

That is not so funny to go everyday to the CB web cite to check and then download the newer version :x.

If users will have automatic updater for most common OS - they will be most happiest users in the wold :lol:.

I think that is on the roadmap for version 1.0 http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Roadmap_for_version_1.0 (http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Roadmap_for_version_1.0)

If you really want RC3, just download the latest nightly and rename the file to codeblocks_RC3.7z

viola!
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: dinosky on December 18, 2006, 06:24:33 am
I have an idea. Probably you have to make an updater from nightly builds and the nightly build with that updater will be the CodeBlocks 1.0!!!

That is not so funny to go everyday to the CB web cite to check and then download the newer version :x.

If users will have automatic updater for most common OS - they will be most happiest users in the wold :lol:.

I think that is on the roadmap for version 1.0 http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Roadmap_for_version_1.0 (http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=Roadmap_for_version_1.0)

If you really want RC3, just download the latest nightly and rename the file to codeblocks_RC3.7z

viola!

Probably the solution is to download a nightly build and label it with the date and collect all know bugs /issues with that particular build and inform all users about it. When it is recommended to users, give them all the information about this particular release and ask them NOT to download from the official site but use your chosen version, and then all features/bugs/problems will be "stable" and you can talk about compatibilities and so on.

Of course this could be done by the C::B team, which is easy : just choose a particular nightly build and label it RC3 and give them all the info about that build and so on, and then everybody will get a "stable" version (by "stable" I mean the same set of feature/bugs/issues etc) RC3 doesn't have to be perfect and all will expect bugs/problems as in any "Release". Why not do it ?
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on December 18, 2006, 06:47:10 am
I can put it on to my personal web cite :lol:...
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: rossa on December 18, 2006, 11:07:52 pm
Hi there,

I'm just new here and I see the first post about RC3 in this thread was there since June, 2006, and now we're in Nov, 2006, and RC3 is still not officially released yet?! That's why I have this really simple question here: when will we have the RC3 rolled out publicly? Thanks :)

Yes its kind of become an ongoing joke really. Basically forget about RC3 just get the nightly.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on December 19, 2006, 02:59:33 am
Probably here is a conspiracy theory 8). They make a commercial product which they are testing on people from Internet :mrgreen:. When I will have time  - will make a web page with stable CB night realizes :!:.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: MortenMacFly on December 19, 2006, 08:30:04 am
whatever
Please don't use any other language than English in this forum. This applies to sigs, too.
With regards, Morten.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: quad cortex on February 28, 2007, 03:45:20 pm
heh, wow, Feb 28 2007 and no RC3... actually, NO official release!!?

Anyway, code::block's a nice IDE even its RC2 version.
I guess I'll try downloading the nightly builds from now on.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: ijese on May 08, 2007, 08:34:01 pm
Well it's May 2007 and ... how is RC3 going?

Best regards,
Igor

--
Igor Jese, igor@jeseonline.com
http://mockupscreens.com
igor@mockupscreens.com
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on May 09, 2007, 04:23:07 am
never  :lol:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: peso on May 15, 2007, 08:54:20 am
Hi developers

Thanks for codeblocks - my favorite IDE: Fast, bugfree, open source, crossplatform, works with many compilers.

I'm wondering why there is no stable releases of codeblocks. I don't mean stable as in do-not-crash, but stable as in branch-with-few-or-none-updates.

The nightly builds satisfy stable as do-not-crash, but as there is a new "release" every night it is not a branch-with-few-or-none-updates.

My guess is that the reason is one of the following:
a) nobody has time to do the work to set up a branch, do the build, collect bug reports.
b) some critical bug/problem in the code is not solved
c) there is no user-supporter on the development team (only great coders).

This thread has been read more than 10,000 times, quite a lot, so I think there must be somebody out there that would like to give a hand to make a stable release happen.

Is it possible for you (developers) to define some tasks that could be done by the community to create a stable branch, with half-yearly releases?

Regards,
Peer
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: David Perfors on May 15, 2007, 11:17:59 am
The official reason for not bringing out a stable release is that some developers want to implement a view things before releasing a stable release. Some of these things should be very easy to implement (a few days) but sometimes it is very difficult.
The good news is that there has been a bugfix week and there is planned one over a couple of weeks.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on May 15, 2007, 02:21:51 pm
feed by promises
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: codeur on May 15, 2007, 03:00:53 pm
Some of these things should be very easy to implement (a few days) but sometimes it is very difficult.
I take this as a reassurance that developers are still considering a stable release as important. No estimate? Fair enough, we are in the open-source world where teams do not have to provide meaningless delivery estimates. It is also reassuring that the focus seems to be moving towards bug fixing. Steady as we go, and thanks for such a good IDE.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Biplab on May 15, 2007, 03:13:29 pm
I take this as a reassurance that developers are still considering a stable release as important.

Yes! Putting a stable release is a major target for us.

No estimate? Fair enough, we are in the open-source world where teams do not have to provide meaningless delivery estimates. It is also reassuring that the focus seems to be moving towards bug fixing. Steady as we go, and thanks for such a good IDE.

Sometimes it becomes difficult to set a deadline and meet it for an Open Source project. One of the important problem is that most of the developers have to work for some organisation to earn bread & butter. That takes most of the free time available to work on the Open-Source project. This is Not an Excuse, rather this is a crude reality.

No open source project would like to feed their user with promises and then delay it. There are some reasons which forced us to delay. This is another reason why we don't want to give you an idea when we are going to release next milestone release. When we'll be ready, we'll announce it. In the meantime we'll organise bug-fix week and try to make it clean. :)

Best Regards,

Biplab
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on May 15, 2007, 09:36:56 pm
Bugfix week sometimes destroys complex project, which work somehow and nobody nows how... :lol:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: byo on May 15, 2007, 10:16:24 pm
Bugfix week sometimes destroys complex project, which work somehow and nobody nows how... :lol:

Oh, no no no, "Working somehow" is definitely not what we want. And it's better to find such "destroying" issues sooner than later. So anyway making bugfix week is a good thing  8)

BYO
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on May 15, 2007, 11:25:33 pm
byo - pls make wxGrid component. That will be real bugfix... Have no time to do that, have no free money to ask somebody to do that :shock:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: byo on May 16, 2007, 12:40:18 am
byo - pls make wxGrid component. That will be real bugfix... Have no time to do that, have no free money to ask somebody to do that :shock:

Ok, but it will be really basic support, I can provide all evens, that's easy, but generated code will only call new wxGrid(...), there will be no CreateGrid nor SetTable called, this will have to be done manually. I don't have time for this either.

BYO
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on May 16, 2007, 02:45:40 am
even that is ok
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: byo on May 16, 2007, 03:16:26 am
It's already on svn, you can try it if you want ;)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on May 16, 2007, 03:39:48 am
Have no time to build something :cry:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: David Perfors on June 21, 2007, 04:09:23 pm
Well, it C::B had some serious memory leaks which are fixed a few days ago. There ae also some people looking to speed improvements. Both are things that have high priority before making a new release. It is frustrating to open a file and have to wait until the file is completely parsed by the code completion plugin.
So yes, this piece of art can be better :)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: rickg22 on June 21, 2007, 05:29:58 pm
Just some announcement, my work on improving the Code Completion plugin has barely started. It's 99% probable it won't make it for RC3 or even Final.

HOWEVER, I got an idea that MIGHT JUST work. I'll post it in the appropriate forum.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: lubos on June 21, 2007, 06:39:18 pm
Just some announcement, my work on improving the Code Completion plugin has barely started. It's 99% probable it won't make it for RC3 or even Final.

HOWEVER, I got an idea that MIGHT JUST work. I'll post it in the appropriate forum.


cant wait for some code completition updates  :D!
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on June 21, 2007, 08:49:55 pm
RC3 forever :lol:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: ralatalo on November 03, 2007, 01:44:49 am
I am glad I didn't hold my breath...but I am curious if there is any new estimates as to when we might see a full release?
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: thomas on November 03, 2007, 03:42:54 pm
December 2, 2038
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: XayC on November 03, 2007, 06:08:27 pm
December 2, 2038
Hehe, what was the rule, every time it's asked, one year is added? :D
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: killerbot on November 03, 2007, 06:22:47 pm
note : ther'rs a technical challenge to take, I think Y2K issues pop up again around 2037 ...
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: eranif on November 03, 2007, 09:16:10 pm
Quote from: killerbot
note : ther'rs a technical challenge to take, I think Y2K issues pop up again around 2037 ...
:(
2 years ago, my team worked for over 7 months to fix all aspects of this bug (called 2038 bug), it started to popup already (In case you wonder why the hell we fixed bugs for something that will become a problem only in decades, think of stocks with expiration date beyond 2038...)

Eran
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on November 04, 2007, 01:22:11 am
Quote from: killerbot
note : ther'rs a technical challenge to take, I think Y2K issues pop up again around 2037 ...
:(
2 years ago, my team worked for over 7 months to fix all aspects of this bug (called 2038 bug), it started to popup already (In case you wonder why the hell we fixed bugs for something that will become a problem only in decades, think of stocks with expiration date beyond 2038...)

Eran


They will build the RC3 together with communism around the world :lol:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Szabadember on November 05, 2007, 01:24:02 am
I think you should delete all threads regarding to the release date of RC3  :twisted:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: MortenMacFly on November 05, 2007, 09:31:31 am
They will build the RC3 together with communism around the world :lol:
We *may* release RC3 onces you remove the cyrillic text in your sig. ;-) This is an english-only forum, these rules apply also for sigs.
With regards, Morten.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Russell on February 18, 2008, 08:12:09 am
This is kind of obvious, but I'll post it anyway. :P

A release is well overdue.. even a minor one, releases help motivate developers, would-be developers and the community
at large, they would also get announced on news/programming/tech/other sites, which in turn bring in more interested users who
will test, make bug reports, feature requests and whatnot, they also bring in potential developers who can help with said users
of said issues. :)

A minor release would also provide a base for which other projects who use the project can report bugs and whatnot too, rc2
is dated and stagnating, a major project like this (an ide) atleast needs a new release every now and then, I'm not talking about
a nightly build either.

You don't need to complete a roadmap in order for release, you can move items that aren't ready to the next version features
that can't get implemented (completely) in time get taken out, non-critical bugs could probably remain if they don't provide too
much of an annoyance.

This is a great project and it would be nice if there was a new version people could fall back on :)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Grom on February 18, 2008, 07:17:14 pm
I want to have RC3 too!!!!  :cry:

With windows automatic updater!!! :idea:
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: MortenMacFly on February 18, 2008, 07:41:11 pm
I want to have RC3 too!!!!  :cry:
I told you in another post of this thread: Remove the Cyrillic sig and we will see. Please note that I am not kidding. We have an english-only forum. This also applies to sigs. Thank you.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: byo on February 18, 2008, 07:51:29 pm
I want to have RC3 too!!!!  :cry:

With windows automatic updater!!! :idea:

I want big house, nice car, some star to have my name and all software to be free and open-source and tons of others.

So who should I annoy to give me that ?
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Blue-Tiger on February 18, 2008, 08:44:53 pm
Something I'd like to get informed about is a "TODO"-List for the upcoming release, so that ppl know how they can help to make the release happen faster: what (hi-priority) bugs need to be fixed, which features need help, does the (and what part of the) documentation/icon/dialogs/translations need polish... this might also help to shut up those constantly bugging you for a request, as you can simply point them to that list and tell them to lend a hand instead of just demanding a new release.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: MortenMacFly on February 18, 2008, 09:21:29 pm
Something I'd like to get informed about is a "TODO"-List for the upcoming release
We have a bug tracker and the forum. We know what's next to do by reading both. That basically should apply to others, too.
With regards, Morten.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: JGM on February 19, 2008, 01:26:43 am
...
 and all software to be free
...

and how we are supposed to live or earn some money if every piece of software is free? :shock:

are we shooting at our selfs? :?
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: MortenMacFly on February 19, 2008, 08:49:30 am
and how we are supposed to live or earn some money if every piece of software is free? :shock:
For example by providing good support. I only know very less companies that have good quality support. BTW: This discussion is a chicken-egg problem anyways. There are enough companies out there providing free / open source software but still earn good money. Take Google as an example! ;-)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: byo on February 19, 2008, 11:35:24 am
...
 and all software to be free
...

and how we are supposed to live or earn some money if every piece of software is free? :shock:

are we shooting at our selfs? :?

Free as in freedom, not for free. You can even sell GPL-ed software, it's not against the license.

Regards
   BYO
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: JGM on February 19, 2008, 01:14:05 pm
Free as in freedom, not for free. You can even sell GPL-ed software, it's not against the license.

Yep, and also the person who you sell the software you made only charging some programming services can also sell the software too.

I know gpl is great, wow linux and everything  :D, but sometimes I can't stop my mind from thinking that gpl also exploits the intellectual work of thousands of developers for free, and big companies like google take a nice piece of pie from it to earn some income. And companies that doesn't got their hands dirty working on a program gain profit selling support from a software that created another person, hahaha if you think deeply is some kind of silly..

Also I have confronted people that only want to pay like $500 bucks for a programming project that can take more than a month, for me thats an insult for programmers, take for example rent a coder website. This kind of behavior is converting the art of computer science a cheap profession.

I have to admit that when it comes to programming tools (like Code::Blocks next version), libraries and general applications like open office, for every day use lgpl and gpl is great, but for every piece of software in the earth, men it's something to worry about,  programmers will be exploited more and more.

I know that MySql have been very success, but they also have a commercial license, without that they will be as poor as me. :P
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: Blue-Tiger on February 20, 2008, 12:34:48 am
Something I'd like to get informed about is a "TODO"-List for the upcoming release
We have a bug tracker and the forum. We know what's next to do by reading both. That basically should apply to others, too.
With regards, Morten.

Sure, but I meant that for people who would specifically only help to get the new release out - how should one know what bugs/features have a big(ger) influence on the release-date and which one can be left alone until after.... But anyways, reading the announcement on your frontpage it seems like that's a non-issue now anyways. So kudos for that, keep up the good work :)
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: stahta01 on February 20, 2008, 03:41:22 am
I thought about posting the newsgroup question where I heard the Code::Blocks was close to release, but decided to let it be an official announcement. Because, it could have been posted as setup for FUD by a none C::B developer, but it seems to be true; so here it is.

Quote
Quoting Thomas Denk <thomas.denk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:

> Hello Earnie,
>

Hi Thomas,

Please use the mingw-users list.

> we are ready to finally put up a new release of Code::Blocks after
> more than 2 years this weekend (or possibly on Monday).
>
> Again, like last time, we would like to bundle MinGW with the Windows
> install for the user's convenience. For that, we include and run the
> MinGW automated installer from our own installer after copying the
> Code::Blocks files into place. Works like a charm.
> At the last minute, however, one possible licensing issue came to my
> mind which I would like cleared before we inadvertedly step on
> someone's feet.
>
> Initially, I was under the assumption that the automated installer is
> a part of MinGW and therefore GPLed like everything else. However,
> the Sourceforge download page doesn't contain the installer's source
> code (which one would expect for GPL), nor does the MinGW site seem
> to contain any statement about it, so I am unsure whether that is
> true at all.
> I don't think that there will be any objections from your side to us
> bundling the installer, but I think you deserve that we at least ask.
>  :-)
> If there are any questions or objections, please do not hesitate to
> contact Yiannis or me.
>

The installer as I can tell from the CVS doesn't contain a preamble
stating a license.  Dave Murphy should answer this question.  It isn't
GPL though so the source copy isn't a requirement.  However, it
wouldn't hurt to add the source to the download environment.

Earnie


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
MinGW-users-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org

You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users

Tim S
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: thomas on February 20, 2008, 04:43:44 pm
Just to clarify, this is not a newsgroup question, but a copy of a private mail message. And no, it is not an announcement.
Title: Re: About RC3
Post by: poutsoklis on February 21, 2008, 02:25:33 pm
guys,
just wanted to say congratulations on adopting gpl3!
also, a big thanx and another big congrats on continuing the steady progress of code::blocks development! (nightlies continue to rock!!!)

poutsoklis