On 10 Feb 2011, at 17:29, Gabriel Farrell wrote: > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> You're absolutely right. 1.0.2 was ready to go quite some time ago but >> several bugs were found as we were releasing. We decided, as a team, >> that we couldn't ship with the bugs that were found, so we elected to >> fix them and delay the release. I think that was the right decision. >> We should only release when we feel the software is ready, not when >> some ultimately arbitrary day looms. > > I completely agree here: there should be no arbitrary release dates. > However, I'm also in favor of increasing the frequency of minor point > releases. Node.js is really inspiring in this area, with new minor > point releases coming out every week or so (ooh, and 0.4.0 just got > released 6 hours ago!). I know the process for an Apache project has > more overhead, we don't have a BDFL, and the older community may not > appreciate a release cycle that's quite so frantic (interpret that as > you like), but there's still something to be learned from the rapid > development and enthusiastic community around Node.
Yup, I totally agree with node showing amazing momentum. But they do have the luxury of being able to break backwards compatibility with any release, really, and we don't have that :) — I think the 1.0.2 time frame was an outlier and that we are in pretty good shape to push maintenance releases quickly, if needed. — Now we only need to demonstrate that :) Cheers Jan -- > >> B. >> >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 8 Feb 2011, at 16:14, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >>> >>>> Still, the problem I have is that it seems like there is a tendency to >>>> make releases large; it seems like there's little control against devs >>>> wanting to add their "one more thing". Particularly for bugfix >>>> releases; from 1.0.1 it took almost 6 months for 1.0.2 to get >>>> released. In between, there were a little under 100 revisions on the >>>> 1.0.x branch, presumably most of those fixing bugs users could >>>> actually run into. It seems valuable to me if the community could have >>>> gotten some of these fixes sooner. >>> >>> I need someone else to weigh in on this, but I believe the reason was >>> because of a few critical bugs that were being worked on. And not, as you >>> suggest, because we were suffering from a Just One More Thing problem. I'd >>> really need Jan or Chris to comment though as I use them as a conduit for >>> judging this stuff. >>
