Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
Philippe, if I understand correctly you are essentially proposing this
with (2-Backward):
/-0.6.0 /-0.6.1 /-0.6.2 /-0.7.0
/ / / /
0.5.m8----0.6.m1------0.6.m2----0.6.m3-----0.7.m1
Which I find confusing. Also, it doesn't any leave room for updating
the 0.6.x releases independently of milestones, should we need it.
It does leave all the room we need: nothing prevents us to create an
0.6.0-r8401 to fix a security issue for instance. Actually it makes
clear that 0.6.0-r8401 is a micro bug fix while 0.6.1 is a significant
step on the road to 0.7.
I am definitely in favor of having stable milestones, and having users
follow us on those milestones -- assuming we get some users ;).
However, I think this just means that we will stop needing 0.6.x
releases once a stable milestone leaves 0.6 in the dust, because we
can have users download the milestone release directly. Given that we
are a pre-1.0 project, I don't think we need to rigorously keep up
parallel 0.6.x releases with milestone releases.
This one, essentially the original proposal, seems pretty rational to
me (I believe like Eclipse):
/-0.6.0--0.6.1 /-0.7.0--0.7.1
/ /
0.5M8-----0.7M1------0.7M2----0.7M3-----0.8M1
as does this (Alec's proposal, if I understand correctly):
/-0.6.0--0.6.1 /-0.7.0--0.7.1
/ /
0.5alpha8-----0.7alpha1------0.7alpha2----0.7alpha3-----0.8alpha1
The problem I see with both is that there's potentially a long dry
period between feature releases available to users. Users who care about
new features will have to pick one of the milestone, say 0.7mx.
Now, let's say that such a milestone is successful (if we get users...
;) ) but has a horrible bug in it. In the meantime, Tinderbox is on fire
and 0.7m(x+1) can't be produced before weeks. What do we do? We'll have
to create an 0.7mx-r8401 off the 0.7mx branch.
So, when said and done, the topology and length of the branches of the
tree will be the same as the (2-Forward) proposal. The difference will
be that:
- we won't have much 0.6.x updates
- we'll be using longish revision names moving toward 0.7
My personal opinion is that, if we go with a "stable high quality
milestones" dev process, because our early adopters will all care for
new features, they'll pick those and the 0.6 name space will have a very
short lifetime. We may even get to a point where we will recommend to
users to download 0.7alphax (because perfs are better or security or
whatever) and that sounds weird to me.
Cheers,
- Philippe
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
