On 16 Dec 2008, at 15:42, Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote: > Anyway, shorter release cycle can give flightgear a chance to get more > attension, so I like that idea. If quarterly releasing cycle is a bit > too often, then semiannual is fine for me. > > What do you guys think?
Quarter annual at least, if not every two months. My reason is selfish - I'd like it be understood that CVS is for compiled code development, and things to be really changing, so C++ changes can be worked on without upsetting aircraft developers or users. It could even be possible to make interim releases with only the base package changed. I'd like a rate fast enough that nightly builds / CVS snapshots become almost unnecessary, and counter-productive - because CVS is never that far from a release. Hopefully this would allow some proper testing of code changes before a release, and easier targeting if a bug makes to an official release: 'blah worked fine in 2.5, you've broken in in 2.6- rc1' knowing there's only a couple of months of commits to check through to identify the cause. Keep in mind that by release I mean something almost entirely automatic - there should be a script that tags, branches, creates a tarballs, and uploads, and hopefully Fred and you can similarly create the builds with little or no manual intervention. Clearly a rapid release cycle will never happen if 'doing a release' is a day of someone's time. James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
