Nick Wellnhofer wrote on 7/1/14 11:29 AM: > On 01/07/2014 15:59, Peter Karman wrote: >> I consider it part of the release-early/often philosophy to push releases >> that >> may only have changes in documentation or internal refactoring. It gives the >> testers something to chew on and helps keep development aligned with actual >> users. Also (and often under-emphasized) the psychological effect of seeing >> "and >> yet another release of Whatever" reflects that the project is alive and well >> and >> Doing Stuff, even if that stuff is invisible to end-users. > > It really depends on the project. IMO, a monthly release cycle is total > overkill > for Lucy. There would be quite a few months where simply nothing happens. We > also have very few active developers. Personally, I prefer to spend my time on > other things than cutting a release that doesn't add real value to users or > developers. But if anyone wants to release 0.4 now for whatever reasons, I > wouldn't object. The master branch has always been stable. > > I only want to make sure that when we make a public release of Clownfish, it > should be somewhat usable and properly documented. Failing this, I agree that > we > should bundle Clownfish with Lucy and hide any of its APIs. >
+1 It's because we have so few active developers (you and Marvin for this Clownfish release) that I agree with keeping Clownfish private till you both feel it is mature (documented, tested, etc) enough to make public. -- Peter Karman . http://peknet.com/ . [email protected]
