On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 15:16, Stipe Tolj wrote: > Oded Arbel wrote: > > > > Agreed. I was hoping that at least the billing issue (I remember it > > being talked about in the list a while back) would interest people. > > I do think, though, that fixes to problems not yet detected "in the > > wild" should go in anyway : that's why it's called a "development tree", > > if the solution does not break anything - of course. > > IMHO, the current situation where the CVS build must never be broken > > because it is the "production version" and so patches require careful > > scrutiny before going in is not healthy. CVS _is_ the place to test > > fixes and new features - when you require that people will download and > > apply your patches one by one, the number of testers will shrink to the > > number of people interested in the specfic patch - which in a > > not-so-high visibility project like Kannel could easily get down to 1~2 > > people - or even less. case in point is the +CMTI patch by Alex Judd - > > it seems like a perfectly valid feature, but only 2 or 3 people on this > > list are at the same time interested and skilled to test iX-Mozilla-Status: >0009tences where some of them cannot find the time to do so, this > > perfectly good feature would simply be abandoned. > > > > I suggest we should roll out a "release" ASAP, using the following > > schedule : > > - branch the tree now (yesterday would have been a good time too ;-) and > > label it 1.2.0. > > - bug fixes may be submitted to either of the trees, and then ported to > > the other. > > - new features may be submitted only to the HEAD tree. > > - features and bug fixes will be submitted freely to the HEAD tree with > > minimum checks for style and obvious coding errors. > > - the HEAD tree will be considered unstable and fit only for development > > work. > > > > Using this method we would not further degrade the current situation > > (where people who have problems are told to upgrade their production > > servers to the CVS version - as it is more stable), while stabilizing > > the development effort for a full fledged "stable" release w/o hampering > > further feature development. > > > > Opinions please ? > > +1 for most of that. > > I was anyway concidering asking the developers about releasing 1.2.0. > I'd like to hear from Bruno, Andreas and some others what they think > about if current CVS HEAD is stable enough to make it a stable release > 1.2.0?
Well.. To be honest, using the CVS is an advantage because that way we get 100% testing and debug, code is done with less errors and bugs are fixed quicker ;) I'm always using cvs in production. Some bugs are only visible on production systems and I don't have time to do testings before upgrading. And if some message is lost, I can always blame the SMSC ;) There's some structural changes that we should do, and for that we really need a different branch. Modularity, new autoconf, real unicode support, etc. But for that, before thinking in branches and releases, we should think in the new architecture. > > Stipe > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wapme Systems AG > > M�nsterstr. 248 > 40470 D�sseldorf > > Tel: +49-211-74845-0 > Fax: +49-211-74845-299 > > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > wapme.net - wherever you are >
