On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Chris Hostetter <[email protected]>wrote:
> For example: we probably shouldn't bother having a release if the only > thing commited to that branch since the previous release are to fix some > typoes in javadocs, or because new tests were added -- those changes are > good, and worth having, but too much proliferation of minor versions for > things that don't impact the users can be distracting and confusion, and > makes it hard to recognize when a release is worth upgrading too (it's a > girl who cried wolf thing). > i completely agree with you. I didn't mean to give the impression by "every month or two" that we should actually have anything remotely resembling a schedule driven by arbitrary dates. I meant here to suggest a very rough idea of the sort of frequency that I think might actually work, and to bring up the point that what we might consider minor features can be viewed by users as major. -- Robert Muir [email protected]
