On Nov 26, 2009, at 5:04 AM, Todd Thiessen wrote: > I can only speak from experience with what we have done here internally but I > can also attest that releasing too often is a real pain. You end up having a > bunch of releases publicized that no one cares about. It only serves to > clutter a repository and makes it confusing to consumers wrt which one to use.
Users just use the latest one you give them. Most users will avoid a release named project-n.n-alpha-n because they don't want to screw around with stuff that is unstable. However, there will be a tiny set of users for which the particular fixes in the alpha is important. > > I love the agile model of development but I don't think this equates to > "releasing something immediately if there are fixes available" as Jason put > it. The release needs to be weighed against the value it provides and the > extra time and effort the community needs to soak and test that release. > Agile states that your software should be releasable at anytime, but it does > not state that it should be continually released. Releases named "alpha or beta" are for testing new functionality. They should not be considered release candidates and they certainly should not be used for production purposes. I would be much more concerned if these were non-alpha or beta type releases. Yes, I have found it difficult to keep up with the pace and have so far been only able to test one alpha. Since 3 votes are required to approve a release I would assume that various PMC members are confirming different releases. However, if it gets to the point where releases are being approved only by members with the same affiliation then I would be concerned. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
