Re: Release Plan

[EricZolf]

Hi Patrik,

On 19/11/2019 20:54, Patrik Dufresne wrote:
> Yep, sorry. About that, I intend to get appveyor working, but then I 
> found out the current travis build for linux was not working well. 
> Submitted a PR to fix the scm_version and did not complete it.

If you could just do a rebase on this one, that would be great, I could 
merge it.

> Long story short, I did not take time to complete the work. But I don't 
> have alot of free time to spent and I really want to jump in, but I'm 
> struggling just to follow all your changes Eric :P

The trick is to learn looking TV and doing coding at the same time ;-)

> Regarding the Windows build, it might also be interesting to leverage 
> the travis windows build instead of appveyor. Would allow us to have a 
> unique CICD pipeline instead of two.

Whatever works for Arrigo or you, I'm open! At the end the result 
counts. Limiting the number of technologies sounds like a good strategy, 
so I'm all for Travis, but if AppVeyor is easier/better for any reason, 
also fine.

Thanks, Eric


> --
> Patrik Dufresne Service Logiciel inc.
> http://www.patrikdufresne.com <http://patrikdufresne.com/>/
> 514-971-6442
> 130 rue Doris
> St-Colomban, QC J5K 1T9
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 2:47 PM <address@hidden 
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Arrigo,
>
>     any help is welcome. Patrick started to work on an Appveyor setup
>     but he
>     seems to be busy, so if you want to take over the issue/branch [1] and
>     finish the work, drop a note in the issue to give Patrick a chance to
>     react, but from my point of view, you're welcome!
>
>     Also under `tools/windows` there is a build setup based on a Vagrant VM
>     and Ansible, so feel free to take the best of all worlds (even if you
>     don't "speak" Ansible, the approach should be obvious from reading
>     through the yaml files and the documentation).
>
>     Thanks, Eric
>
>     [1] https://github.com/rdiff-backup/rdiff-backup/issues/105
>
>
>
>     On 19/11/2019 10:54, Arrigo Marchiori wrote:
>      > Hello,
>      >
>      > On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 09:29:10PM +0000, EricZolf wrote:
>      >
>      >> Hi,
>      >> good question, let me try to summarize the current state:
>      >>
>      >> - migration to Python 3 is finished, there are no  known
>     regressions.
>      >> - we've fixed a fair amount of smaller bugs and cleaned the repo
>     structure
>      >> - testing on Linux is done automatically and regularly so that
>     I'm quite confident about the quality of the code on this platform
>      >> - testing on Windows would need more love - anybody is welcome
>     to test who can compile rdiff-backup
>      >
>      > I developed a small build system:
>      > https://github.com/ardovm/rdiff-backup-build
>      > that makes an self-contained EXE file (as did previous stable
>      > releases) starting from the sources of librsync and rdiff-backup.
>      >
>      > It can also make self-contained binaries for Linux, and possibly
>     other
>      > Unix-based systems (to be tested).
>      >
>      > Contributions, comments etc. are of course welcome.
>      >
>      > [...]
>      >> Writing these lines, I realise that I should try to generate a
>     beta release (even if only manually) so that people can more easily
>     test, without the trouble of compiling the code.
>      >
>      > I was also expecting this. IMHO it is better to have a release tag,
>      > alpha- or beta- is ok, but it must have a name, that we will be able
>      > to refer to in bug reports etc.
>      >
>      > Once we have the tag, I could help generating the binaries, if you
>      > think it would be useful.
>      >
>      > Best regards,
>      >