On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 :)
Ryan's been a bit more careful about backwards compatibility lately with the move to stable even and unstable odd branch releases. Backwards compatibility is a concern for any project as it matures. So, yeah, more agreement -- let's keep that concern in mind as we quickly push releases. :) > 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. >>> > >
