:)

This idea certinally has been proposed already, and some initial writing up on 
a plan can be found here: http://trac.adium.im/wiki/ReleaseCycle

another email thread on it was started by colin, inspired by Mozilla's plan, 
can be found here: 
http://adium.im/pipermail/devel_adium.im/2011-March/008199.html

I can't find the initial email threads/irc logs where we discussed the 1-month 
per phase cycle mentioned on our wiki, but there should be enough info there to 
get started.


On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Colin Barrett wrote:

> Aren't we, in theory, supposed to be doing this already? 
> 
> At the very least the old plan should be the strawman proposal we begin with, 
> considering how long we spent hashing it all out. 
> 
> -Colin (via thumbs)
> 
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Paul Wilde <paulwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Something I'd like to suggest whilst we're on the subject of releases is 
>> maybe adopt a similar release cycle to Google Chrome once 1.5 is released. 
>> Mozilla (Firefox) have just now adopted this as well.
>> 
>> 1.4.2 was released 7 months after 1.4.1, that's a long time when a few of 
>> those tickets were fixed within a month or two of 1.4.1 being released. 1 or 
>> 2 releases could of potentially been made in between 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 to give 
>> users bug fixes faster.
>> 
>> So basically what I'm trying to say is rather than having fixes and features 
>> sat on a branch for 1-2 years begging to be see the light of day whilst 
>> waiting for the rest of the features to be completed, instead release what's 
>> there (assuming its release quality of course). I know stuff has been said 
>> previously about keeping branches in a release quality state.
>> 
>> Also to ensure that stuff does actually get released set a rough timeframe 
>> of one minor release every month with whatever fixes are committed during 
>> that time. 
>> 
>> Really 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 etc don't need to hold 100+ tickets as it demotivates 
>> people from contributing, I believe 30-40 tickets per major release is 
>> perfectly fine.
>> 
>> I know that both Adrian and Robby are in favour of this at the very least.
> 


Reply via email to