I could be wrong, but I thought there has been been work done on the Lucy side for the C bindings. Or is this strictly only related to Clownfish?
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Peter Karman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >
