On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been uncomfortable with the amount of features I perceive are > going into our maintenance releases for a while now. I thought it > would stop after we committed ourselves to having a more predictable > major release schedule. But getting 0.7.1 out feels like it's taken a > lot more effort than it should have. I wonder if part of the problem > is that we've been committing destabilizing features into it? IMO, > maintenance releases (0.7.1, 0.7.2, etc.) should only contain bug > fixes and *carefully* vetted features. > > I've scanned down the list of 0.7.1 changes in CHANGES.txt and about > half of them are features that I think could have stayed in trunk. I > think we did this a lot with the early maintenance releases of 0.6 as > well, probably in an effort to get features out *now* instead of > waiting for an 0.7 that was not happening soon enough. We've decided > to pick up the pace of our major release schedule (sticking to four > months). I think maintaining this pace will be difficult if we > continue to commit as many features into the minor releases as we have > been. > > I'm willing to concede that I may have an abnormally conservative > opinion about this. But I wanted to voice my concern in hopes we can > improve the quality and delivery of our maintenance releases.
I agree with you. We've tried both approaches and I believe that its clear that releasing features in maintenance releases leads to more pain and unpredictability. -ryan
