Next Release 5.6.0 #600
Comments
|
@geoffmcl, no problems holding off. It would have been nice to have an autumn solstice release, but maybe we can make Canada happy by honoring their Thanksgiving tradition for a release? It looks like there's some low-hanging fruit that can be cleaned up. I'm not sure how much I can commit to them, but I'll check in and can definitely support macOS binaries, doc updates, gh-pages, etc. |
|
@balthisar had to look it up, but went for Will work toward clearing as many issues as possible, as usual... Also created a 5.7, for about 6 months later - May 24, 2018 - but just a random date... will start to move issue unlikely to make it to release 5.6 to there... thanks... |
|
Sounds great, @geoffmcl. |
|
We're up to .70! This is going to be our most improved release yet. |
|
@balthisar, now up to .85, and have reviewed the new Tidy Release Steps I though I already had this somewhere, but could not now immediately find it... Also note several steps are very order specific...
I have easy scripts to do 2. and 5., so I could take it up to 6 (a)... advise if I missed anything... bad order... appreciate feedback on this list... Are there any special issues that you think must be included, if at all possible... which may put the schedule back? I have none... But if none, then we need to actually choose a day... suggest Sat or Sun, 25 or 26? Which is better for you? Or some other? thanks... |
|
@geoffmcl, this list looks complete to me, other than api.html-tidy.org, which I can take care of. I might take a look at some of the readme's to make sure that they're up to date, first, as they're easy to overlook. That would be prior to the 5.6 tag/push. As far as order, feel free to merge to master if not all of the binaries are present. I can add the macOS binaries after the fact. If you want to merge #645 before the push, I'm okay with that, despite wanting to know your vision of the future. You're working +5 hours or so, so from my perspective, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday are all good, as long as my dear wife is tolerant. I really think that this is going to be our biggest update yet, and I'm looking forward to it. I wish we had more help, but for two guys separated by an ocean and having vastly different views on some things, I think we manage to do pretty damned good! And... I hope you're feeling better. |
|
@balthisar yes, feeling better... thanks... Yes, had forgotten the api docs update... glad you will take care of that... Generally, Fridays are very short computer days for me... shopping takes over... Will probably skip #645 for now, and move it out to next 5.7... So let's go for Saturday, with Sunday fall back... as stated I will try to kick off with 1 to 6a... Agree for two guys separated by an ocean, with different views on some things, we do do OK ;=)) |
|
@balthisar as expected, little time today, but do want to float two ideas for this release...
The first is because I am thinking of at least 4 zips for windows, with names like
And also some variation for my Ubuntu builds, 32 and 64 bit... Maybe even add a MinGW build, or builds, and Raspbian build... and there are possibly other Windows variations, like What do you think? suggestions... thanks... On 2., as you know we have had a virus report, a false positives I think, but remember we did discuss adding at least a SHA1 hash... For each I could also upload like a Could this either hash value, or at least the download of the corresponding SHA1 file, be added to the binaries site? I seem to remember we did discuss this somewhere, and you would look into it... any other quick ideas, other than adding the SHA1 file? Off shopping now... be back soonest... |
|
@geoffmcl, Sure, I can look into modifying the binaries to do just that. One question about all those versions, though: are they all needed? I suppose the vc10's are, because I think I remember reports that some older OS didn't have the required Windows libraries? And I suppose there are still 32-bit Windows, and Linuxes. But considering what the typical user* who's looking for binaries (rather than building for himself) wants, why would he ever care about a MinGW build, or static versus dynamic builds? In any case, I'll make sure the binaries system works with whatever you throw at it, and you're the one generating the Windows builds, but I just wonder if you're overworking yourself with all those builds! |
|
@geoffmcl, I've updated binaries.html-tidy.org to include SSH256 hashes, and I've added hashes for all of the existing binaries. Decided not to use SHA1 as it’s insecure. |
|
@balthisar ask for A and get B, sans discussion!, but thanks, I think ;=)) Have now completed 1 to 6.a.1 at least... slight delay while I adjusted my tool chain for the SHA256 generation in Windows... Tried Power Shell, but that reminded my how much I dislike that interface, and forked And that setting up of a tool chain is why now adding multiple builds is not really And if you read through the appropriate issue comments, I think more choices is better, plus 32-bits, etc... I even still run 2 32-bit linuxes... Will add more bins over the coming days... Out for a nice cup of coffee, in the sun, but getting quite cool... later... thanks... |
|
@geoffmcl, sorry about that. I assumed OpenSSL was installed by default on Windows. It's on my Windows 10 setup, and works in cmd; no Powershell required. |
|
@balthisar no problem... as you can see I rather enjoyed finding, researching, building and setting up my Windows tool chain... but takes time... But that did make me ponder about other Windows users... what are they likely to have available by way of checksum generators, and checkers? I certainly do not think it is installed by default in Windows 10, at least not in my free upgraded to 10... and in fact did not even find a binary install that included it... but did not look too hard now I have my own ;=)) So to be very sure added the small files Or even check all if they are really vexed about security LOL But am happy that the binaries site only has one displayed... looks more professional now... thanks... And also seems But in trying the Maybe you will get a chance to complete some more of the release steps... thanks... |
|
@geoffmcl, I'll work on macOS binaries presently. As you mention, the hash files in the current "releases" are tests, and I'm not going to link to them. On Windows 10 (updated from Windows 7 Pro clean install just a month ago), the program I use is
I'll merge to master, too, since you're sleeping now, and update the binaries site. |
|
Update: www.html-tidy.org updated, binaries.* updated with your .zip and my .dmg, sha256 added for both, api.* updated for 5.6.0 and next, next merged to master, next bumped to 5.7.0, and I think we're good. I didn't generate RPM's or binaries for other versions of Windows simply because I don't use them. It's good that they're there until the distros catch up, though. If you have time for a quick lesson, I can take the load off next time. |
|
@balthisar did not get very much done on As mentioned, the binaries site looks great, and yes did not particularly intend you But wow, suddenly realized you are talking about an So, yes, I now do have an alternative way to generate a But the That is, it gets the checksum and actual file name from the But as stated, I am also happy the just have the Although, if the binaries site also offered them, the What do you think? And thanks for doing the api site... this looks great too... and the As usual off to dinner - sleep is much, much later... I too think we are good ;=)) |
|
@geoffmcl, is there some checksum verification process that's automatic that I don't know about? I'm a bit slower as I age... I think I understand that you can download two files -- and .sha256, run a simple command, and get an okay. Then people don't have to verify character by character the actual checksum? Which is great, considering I only look at the first few and last few characters when doing it manually! Is this a common practice that I'm just not aware of, or is this just a thing that only one or two people know about? Either way, there's no work; we can upload anything we want to github and the binaries page; I'm just curious if this is a workflow I'm ignorant of. |
|
@balthisar well I too was ignorant of it too until a few days ago, when you pushed me into finding and using But it is really picky about the So after downloading the 2 files - Look how angy it gets, with very misleading error messages, over line endings... But after I ran Now I do not know how many people Although I did not know about this Just noted, nearly the 9th aniversary of that app... And certainly note quite a lot of, usually ftp type, download sites do include these check files... so they too offer the possibility... and it works for Anyway, as stated, I am also happy with just showing the SHA256 on the binaries site... But will continue to add the check files for each on github... and will try to get around to doing it also for all the previous files... unless you beat me to it ;=)) |
|
Tricky Geoff ;=)) Added an option to my Tried that out with linux Will now do the same for my new Hope you get a chance to check in the macOS... thanks... |
|
@balthisar have now added the 4 windows zips I promised, including the appropriate check files... Found a tiny tiny problem with the MSVC10 build, and had to apply the following patch - diff --git a/src/tidylib.c b/src/tidylib.c
index 85d59e2..ce72acd 100644
--- a/src/tidylib.c
+++ b/src/tidylib.c
@@ -1436,8 +1436,8 @@ int TY_(DocParseStream)( TidyDocImpl* doc, StreamIn* in )
Bool xmlIn = cfgBool( doc, TidyXmlTags );
TidyConfigChangeCallback callback = doc->pConfigChangeCallback;
- doc->pConfigChangeCallback = NULL;
int bomEnc;
+ doc->pConfigChangeCallback = NULL;
assert( doc != NULL && in != NULL );
assert( doc->docIn == NULL );
Have not pushed it to Have now generated all the And if possible, instead of the long filename being the link text it just be something like - Where Or is that too busy, or too much trouble... look forward to your ideas... thanks... |
|
@balthisar have now added more check files for releases, but only for the Windows binaries at this time, since this is where people perceive the biggest threat from viruses... rightly or wrongly... And made mention of the reason for these text files in the But, as indicated would add them for all binaries, if you agree... please advise... thanks... Also suggest we now delete intermediate |
|
Sorry I've been unresponsive, @geoffmcl; I've been out of town learning my competitors' secrets (actually it was an open conference). I can't promise to respond much tonight, maybe by the weekend... Thanks for the MSVC 10 check. I'd thought I'd taught Clang to find all of those for me, and of course I build release and test on Windows, but, sigh, with MSVC 17! What's the normal workflow for people to check hashes? I've never checked with anything online. In the past, and sometimes today when things aren't signed, I'd just visually compare the hash. I never realized there was a workflow for checking a resource online. My instinct would be not to trust a specialized tool to check online (Trojan horse), but if it's built into, say, openssl, then trust would be high. These days almost everything is signed, and I usually check with The macOS installer I build is signed with an official Apple developer ID, for example. I suppose I could sign the .dmg package container, but I'd not thought of that. The hash works for now, though. We could consider signing as an alternative to hashes (future thinking, not right now), but this gives us issues with archiving private keys and the like. Actually we kind of have similar issues with our domains, which are renewing shortly. If I get whacked by a robot really good, I'd hate to see the domains lost because of the lack of Jim. I'm not sure why we kept those intermediate releases. There was a compelling reason at the time; but I'd agree to removing them from both binaries.* and releases. I think we have to delete the tags. I'll look into it by the weekend at the latest, unless you beat me to it. |
|
Just moved the milestone, but for no particular reason chose |
@balthisar, although, I had originally arbitrarily set this for Sept 20, 2017, I do not think I would be ready for that...
Will try to do a detailed analysis of the open issues, over the coming days, but at the very least would like to close #597 first... but there are probably others that are important...
So propose moving it out at least a few weeks, if not a month, or months... As usual I could do the
release notes, and upload windows and unix binaries when we get there...What is your schedule like? What would be a good target date for you?
We need you 100% for the macOS... thanks...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: