Branching for 6.5

[Dan Sully]

All - we'll be branching 6.5 off of trunk about a month before our scheduled
release - so either the 18th or 21st of August. This way we'll have a month
of small, tested fixes to go into 6.5.

So this is a call for any medium sized changes - what are they, do you have a
patch ready, etc.

Thanks

-D
--
There is no emergency. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[kdf]

On 8-Aug-06, at 12:15 PM, Dan Sully wrote:
>
> So this is a call for any medium sized changes - what are they, do you
> have a
> patch ready, etc.

A work in progress of a player UI settings refactor. This works the
settings menu into the home menu API. This starts to make much greater
use of the checkBoxOverlay UI ('[X]' on active pref) and also allows
other settings items to be added at runtime (ie from Plugins) via the
Buttons::Home::addSubmenu.

It's an operational demo and still has a few prefs to change over, plus
some rework to be able to add the rescan plugin to the settings menu.




-kdf

[cjk32]

Dan Sully wrote:
> All - we'll be branching 6.5 off of trunk about a month before our
> scheduled release - so either the 18th or 21st of August. This way
> we'll have a month of small, tested fixes to go into 6.5.
>
> So this is a call for any medium sized changes - what are they, do
> you have a patch ready, etc.
>
> Thanks
>
> -D

Patch to add prefs for server and scanner priorities. Not sure if the prefs
are suitably located and could probably do with the descriptions rephrasing
more elegantly.

Chris

[Dan Sully]

* Christopher Key shaped the electrons to say...

>Patch to add prefs for server and scanner priorities. Not sure if the prefs
>are suitably located and could probably do with the descriptions rephrasing
>more elegantly.

Looks good. Have you tested it? Let's get this in.

Thanks

-D
--
"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." - Albert Einstein

[cjk32]

Dan Sully wrote:
> * Christopher Key shaped the electrons to say...
>
>> Patch to add prefs for server and scanner priorities. Not sure if
>> the prefs are suitably located and could probably do with the
>> descriptions rephrasing more elegantly.
>
> Looks good. Have you tested it? Let's get this in.
>

Basic testing - processes appear with the correct priorities etc. under
win32. I don't have access to a non win32 machine to test on, but I've
changed effectivly nothing of platform specific code so can't foresee any
problems.

Chris

[cjk32]

Christopher Key wrote:
> Dan Sully wrote:
>> * Christopher Key shaped the electrons to say...
>>
>>> Patch to add prefs for server and scanner priorities. Not sure if
>>> the prefs are suitably located and could probably do with the
>>> descriptions rephrasing more elegantly.
>>
>> Looks good. Have you tested it? Let's get this in.
>>
>
> Basic testing - processes appear with the correct priorities etc.
> under win32. I don't have access to a non win32 machine to test on,
> but I've changed effectivly nothing of platform specific code so
> can't foresee any problems.
>

Here's an improved version that sets the scanner priority more
intelligently. I'd be grateful if someone could test it under a *nix
system, particularly with the scanner priority set to 'Current Server
Priority'. Once I've got a few confirmations that it at least basically
works, I'll check it in.

Chris

[mherger]

> So this is a call for any medium sized changes - what are they, do you
> have a patch ready, etc.

The forking stuff is still described as experimental. Will this stay that
way with the 6.5 release?

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

[andyg]

On Aug 13, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Michael Herger wrote:

>> So this is a call for any medium sized changes - what are they, do
>> you have a patch ready, etc.
>
> The forking stuff is still described as experimental. Will this
> stay that way with the 6.5 release?

No, we'll figure something out before release. Currently I'm leaning
towards removing stream forking from the web UI as it's complex and
not receiving much if any testing. Web forking isn't either (or
there are just no bugs but it's far simpler and can probably stay
in with the experimental status removed.