The 16 january 2007 build will NOT be out.

[killerbot]

we still need to fix yesterday's issue.
Don't worry, we will get there 

[Grom]

 :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[orefa]

Look what you're doing to Grom. Think of the children!!

[MortenMacFly]

we still need to fix yesterday's issue.

I wonder whether in the mean time we should simply revert r3491... I mean: it's a single line of code that makes things worse but will bring us back the gdb path bug. But this is at least less annoying. ;-)

[killerbot]

well, all we need is for the big boss to be online 5 minutes ;-)

[gjsmo]

http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time

So, it'll be fixed "in the coming weeks", right? :lol:

[Grom]

Probably that is the time to public C::B version 3.0 :lol:

[agent007se]

It seems VERY strange !

Maybe a final release is coming

[MortenMacFly]

Be quiet now. It's fixed in SVN.
With regards, Morten.

[killerbot]

nope, side effects :

-------------- Build: Debug in Delete Me ---------------
g++ -L/usr/lib  -o "./Delete Me" obj/Debug/main.o   
g++: obj/Debug/main.o: No such file or directory
g++: no input files
Process terminated with status 1 (0 minutes, 0 seconds)
0 errors, 0 warnings

the full path is : /home/killerbot/Documents/CbProjects/Delete Me/main.cpp

there's not even afile handed over to compile ...

[MortenMacFly]

there's not even afile handed over to compile ...

Dammed. :?
It was one QuoteStringIsNeeded too much and at a wrong position (from testing...:-().

[MortenMacFly]

Right. It should work *now*.
Anyway: The bug the change was intended to fix (the debugger's breakpoint issue) is still not fixed completely. It works for more cases now but not for all (see http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=4850.msg38631#msg38631). However - at least is able to compile again... ;-)
With regards, Morten.

[thomas]

I really think we should stop offering nightly builds... they practically make development impossible.

Lieven, what if you just offer a "sunday build" or something (can be any day)?

[PsYhLo]

I really think we should stop offering nightly builds... they practically make development impossible.

Lieven, what if you just offer a "sunday build" or something (can be any day)?

good idia
for me it doesn't matter i compile it my self

[MortenMacFly]

Lieven, what if you just offer a "sunday build" or something (can be any day)?

I would agree on that point. I thinks it's enough and saves us some time in addition. What do you (Lieven) think?
For the naming I vote for "weekly snapshot". ;-)
With regards, Morten.

[killerbot]

first of all : Morton : fix confirmed ;-)

Weekly or daily : weekly less work for me, on the other hand dailys will shows us way faster regressions and we can always hold back dailys like we did last week.
So if people think we should go weekly, well weekly it is then, but for me it's no problem to do the daily one [that's still what I prefer]


PS : on one linux box I am stuck at 800*600 :-( and because of that I can't see the OK button of the compiler options :-( , can we catch such things and add a scrollbar ?

[Belgabor]

I'd recommend roughly staying at daylies, but remove the force. You've pampered us so much that we start to throw tantrums when a nightly is missing
I also think that not every small commit warrants a new "nightly" (e.g. cosmetic bug fixes, internal changes).

[MortenMacFly]

I also think that not every small commit warrants a new "nightly" (e.g. cosmetic bug fixes, internal changes).

At least this we have already implemented: No nightly if there are only "- whatever" commits, but if there are "* commits" -> see the log to understand what I mean.
With regards, Morten.

[Jewe]

I think is all a matter of how much input do you want?
less? switch to weekly.
the same? keep this up, I accept the fact that there no new version out for a couple of days.
(...patience is a virtue.)

other way of doing it, release a full version..
This way you can point people to use version 1.0
and you get a snap shot for version 1.x every week.

like my boss always says, sometimes you need to stop and jump on the bike in order to go faster..

[Pecan]

The user input from nightlies has been invaluable.
I don't believe my CB contribs would be as stable without it.

[cstudent]

I'm cool with building the Ubuntu .deb whenever, daily or weekly. I've noticed on the download page that there are more downloads every few days, so maybe a bi-weekly offer?. Although, I'd really like to know what was so special about the Ubuntu rev 3197 back on Nov 9th. It got over 3000 downloads! And the Fedora rev 3445 on News Year Eve must have been really, really special. It got over 18,000!

[Pecan]

I'm cool with building the Ubuntu .deb whenever, daily or weekly. I've noticed on the download page that there are more downloads every few days, so maybe a bi-weekly offer?. Although, I'd really like to know what was so special about the Ubuntu rev 3197 back on Nov 9th. It got over 3000 downloads! And the Fedora rev 3445 on News Year Eve must have been really, really special. It got over 18,000!

Wow!! It never occured to me there were that many users of CB.
Wonder how man MSW users?

[killerbot]

I'm cool with building the Ubuntu .deb whenever, daily or weekly. I've noticed on the download page that there are more downloads every few days, so maybe a bi-weekly offer?. Although, I'd really like to know what was so special about the Ubuntu rev 3197 back on Nov 9th. It got over 3000 downloads! And the Fedora rev 3445 on News Year Eve must have been really, really special. It got over 18,000!

 :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[orefa]

I think is all a matter of how much input do you want?

Indeed. A build at some preset time, be it nightly or weekly, is not necessarily the best approach. I think after any significant change is made (as decided by the need to receive feedback on it) then a new build can be produced. Change this section to "Latest Build" and only release as necessary, when necessary. It may be daily during some periods, it may take five days or it may even happen twice in the same day if something warrants it. Either way, we'll live.

[Jewe]

I'm cool with building the Ubuntu .deb whenever

Thx for making the build so I can play with Ubuntu.

@orefa
I think you should try and release as much as possible. this way people will come back, because its a daily or almost daily thing.

[stahta01]

I think is all a matter of how much input do you want?

Indeed. A build at some preset time, be it nightly or weekly, is not necessarily the best approach. I think after any significant change is made (as decided by the need to receive feedback on it) then a new build can be produced. Change this section to "Latest Build" and only release as necessary, when necessary. It may be daily during some periods, it may take five days or it may even happen twice in the same day if something warrants it. Either way, we'll live.

I second this suggest with some additional ideas.

Change "Nightly Build" section to "Latest development Build".
And, I suggest the idea "Latest Test Build" being used on the Wiki page somewhere this would refer to a "Development Build" that was found to work up to some set level of performance.

Some items that a "Latest Test Build" should have.
Builds for it exists for Linux, Windows Unicode and Windows ANSI.
Linux builds should exist for a least Linux platforms.
The "Latest Test Build" should be able to build Code::Blocks using SVN setup.

Once, Code::Blocks 1.0 is released I would stop "Latest Test Build" until the "Release build" (Code::Blocks 1.0) can NOT build the "Latest development Build" anymore.

Note, I am thinking of  "Latest Test Build" being used as a bootstrap build that can build C::B from SVN or at some future time from tgz.

Tim S