Really worried about trunk development!

Main development forum.

Re: Really worried about trunk development!

Postby kimmov » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:34 am

The extra verbosity and mixing everything together really does not help anybody. There might be valuable information but it is very hard to find and digest. Maybe if you had time to read all that with time. Which I don't.

What I'm asking is:
  • what is the problem - clear description - this is required for others (including me) to understand the issue.
  • what is the solution (if any) - perhaps some choices for the solution
  • and as extra some estimate how much work it is + possible dependencies for other issues

Instead I see every item containing pages after pages arguing about things which many times are even unrelated. So yes, I'm frustrated.

And for me it is much easier to just ignore such time wasting items and look for items which I can do something about.

The fact is I have at max few hours per week for WinMerge development. You can't tell me "follow the code to understand". I have no time and I will ignore such comments.
kimmov
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: Finland

OT: about sharing information

Postby kimmov » Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:11 pm

Erased the OT post of my own.
kimmov
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Really worried about trunk development!

Postby kimmov » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:26 am

Back to the topic.

Our goal must be to get a stable version(s) for users in timely manner. Now we have failed in this badly. Biggest reason is the lack of time but another important reason is the current status of the code which if far from releasable state.

The suggested "solutions" (as far as I can understand) requires big changes to key code. And then we just should trust that code - that it works for everybody for every file they have. Sorry, not going to happen. I remember too well the time and work it took to get initial Unicode support in.

My preferred solution is to sit back and think what is wrong in latest stable version. Or latest stable version compared to 2.10.x stable version. Again if I've understood correctly there were regressions? Then we should fix those problems. We don't need to fix everything that is broken in WinMerge. We need to fix bugs that cause problems for users.

In other words I'd label current trunk development as "interesting experiment" and re-start development towards stable version from earlier well working stable version. There are quite a many patches committed to trunk after stable version, but how many of those we really need? There are of course things like translation files folders restructuring which we certainly need. But on top of those just the absolutely needed patches at first. Then when we have more stable basis we can apply a bit more risky stuff too. But the key is to keep things stable not throw in everything remotely interesting.
kimmov
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Really worried about trunk development!

Postby kimmov » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:40 am

So how to do it? Pretty easily with Git or Mercurial. Now way to do it sanely with SVN.

In practice:
  1. create new branch starting from same revision than where 2.12.x release branch started.
  2. merge all patches from 2.12 branch to this new branch. Now we have practically a clone of 2.12 branch, but not altering old release branch.
  3. using rebase (Git/Mercurial), cherrypick (Git) or transplant (Mercurial) features transfer selected patches from current SVN trunk to this new branch
I've done something similar in other projects and with good tools it works nicely.
kimmov
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Really worried about trunk development!

Postby kimmov » Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:21 pm

kimmov wrote:Bugs like #2995925 No refreshing after merging difference should never have happened. And I'm shamed I let it past me since I probably applied the patch causing it. No excuses, very poor testing from my side. But also good indicator that I cannot trust people sending patches if this kind of crap is sent. And honestly I have no time to test every single patch for every possible bug.

Thanks to Matthias who pointed me into revisions causing this bug I've now reverted those two revisions (7086 and 7089). So this bug is now fixed.

Interesting of course is they are my own commits (Whoops! :oops: ). And I'm honestly baffled about these revisions causing such regression. I also thought I tested things after committing them but probably tested wrong things (changing options). But this again also shows how fragile some parts of our code are. Refresh logic is one of those we have added more tweaks and tricks over old tweaks and tricks without really thinking and fixing the underlying problem...
kimmov
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Really worried about trunk development!

Postby matthias1955 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:21 pm

(7086 and 7089).
Why to revert that patches? They have no influense to stable release.
We must solve that bug.
Your problem is just, you match 2.13.x with 2.12.x.
Your bugreport is in 2.13.x and for that is the patch.
To solve all related things we need some more to do.
With my complete patch it's working fine. I will splitt my patch, as it is not easy it will take time.
Only after that we can move it to stabe.

Foldercompare.
we need just to prodec, we have only UTF-8nB or ANSI files on both sides.
What is so difficult.
I had to refuse so often, as I found more and more exceptions. As all are related to same functions, I must refuse to solve the problems. Today I had a new one. i don't know why, seams to be again a encodeing problem.
Jochen has puted some new code in IO.c.
So fare I understand, he is doing the same like me. Only as he changed an external fle, I don't think you will like it.
matthias1955
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:55 pm

Re: Really worried about trunk development!

Postby kimmov » Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:50 pm

matthias1955 wrote:(7086 and 7089).
Why to revert that patches? They have no influense to stable release.

To solve very annoying regression in current trunk/experimental releases. Those patches were a clear error as I explained in previous post.

matthias1955 wrote:We must solve that bug.

There is no bug.

matthias1955 wrote:Your problem is just, you match 2.13.x with 2.12.x.
Your bugreport is in 2.13.x and for that is the patch.

Yes. Everybody should always compare things to latest stable release. We are doing this work for users (and little bit for ourselves). But there are millions of users and couple of active developers. So it is much more important to think about users than us couple of developers. I hope you understand that some day.

For users experimental releases just don't exist. They don't know about them and we aren't telling them about experimental releases. Experimental releases are to help us developers to verify the bugs and get better idea how the latest code works. We strongly discourage users to even download experimental releases. I hate it when normal user installs experimental release - it just means somebody is using WinMerge version (for work) that is middle of development and may just eat their files!

I think I should simply stop releasing experimental releases to Sf.net. I've been thinking about this earlier too and I think there are even some earlier discussions about the topic. Maybe we can have some semi-public place for snapshot releases for developers and people really wanting to risk their data. But current way that normal users download and install experimental release and think it is our latest and greatest release is just very wrong.

I'll let download numbers talk:
  • stable releases: 200 000+ downloads
  • experimental releases: 1000+ downloads

matthias1955 wrote:To solve all related things we need some more to do.

Which related things?

matthias1955 wrote:With my complete patch it's working fine. I will splitt my patch, as it is not easy it will take time.
Only after that we can move it to stabe.

Which patch? What stable? There is no "stable" to move patches to.

matthias1955 wrote:Foldercompare.
we need just to prodec, we have only UTF-8nB or ANSI files on both sides.
What is so difficult.

That you refuse to explain the situation. I've asked explanation way too many times. But thanks to Jochen I think I now understand what problem you are talking about. I'm not reading the code or doing detective work for you. You submit patch - you explain it.

matthias1955 wrote:I had to refuse so often, as I found more and more exceptions. As all are related to same functions, I must refuse to solve the problems. Today I had a new one. i don't know why, seams to be again a encodeing problem.

Which is clear signal that there is something really broken. And of course you again talk about some functions and something broken. So this old "WinMerge is totally broken" from you once again.

matthias1955 wrote:Jochen has puted some new code in IO.c.
So fare I understand, he is doing the same like me. Only as he changed an external fle, I don't think you will like it.

No, I like Jochen's idea very much (as I wrote to the patch item). It is clever idea to solve the problem once and for all. Jochen properly explained the idea and change. So it is very easy for me to agree with it.
kimmov
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: Finland

Better download numbers

Postby kimmov » Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:50 pm

I just took a look at Sf.net's beta download service. Total download counts are currently:
  • 5,500,835 for the stable releases.
  • 83,705 for the experimental releases.
I think we can now stop the discussion about which versions users are using and what versions developers need to care about.
kimmov
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Really worried about trunk development!

Postby matthias1955 » Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:18 pm

Summary: - ID: 2801578 Last Update: Comment added ( matthias1955 ) Details:
see forum open discussion 'UCS-2 diff problem by duncan_lilly '
While checking I found that in foldercompare we are not supporting an unicode convert to UTF-8.
In case of UCS2LE:
As all filters and compare options cannot work as expected.
So ignore empty line sets all diff to trivial, as we detect the last(first for empty lines) char
in line as a '\0'.


that' the original header,what was not to understand?
was it not written
foldercompare we are not supporting an unicode convert to UTF-8.


If you didn't understand that, sorry than the long discuss is clear.
matthias1955
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:55 pm

Re: Better download numbers

Postby gerundt » Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:45 pm

kimmov wrote:I just took a look at Sf.net's beta download service. Total download counts are currently:
  • 5,500,835 for the stable releases.
  • 83,705 for the experimental releases.
I think we can now stop the discussion about which versions users are using and what versions developers need to care about.


Currently shows SF.net WinMerge-2.13.12-Setup.exe as main download at the project home page. Since 2010-04-29 have already 10,571 downloads from the file! Normally we have +-2500 for all files of a experimental build. So this must be the most tested experimental version we ever had! :mrgreen:
gerundt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:47 am
Location: Germany

PreviousNext

Return to Developers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests