At 15:11 02.05.01 -0300, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>Hans and list,
>
>
>Just droping my 2 cents on the isse of making a new release:
>
>I am the kind of user who can get CVS builds and compile them. But most
users cannot, and this impacts me as a consultant, because my customers
cannot get from cvs and compile themselves. If someone makes software and
releases it on the internet, that's not just for fun, bu because he likes
having happy users.
>
Just another one who knows why I'm doing free work. Let me tell you, the
happy users from my daytime work are enough for me :-)
And, the whole discussion wasn't about why making releases, but about
why *not* making releases ...
>I could make my release of dia and package as an RPM, but it would be my
release. Even if I�d tried to manage my release, the developers should
agree on what's release X.Y. If the developers are too busy or do not like
to thake the hard job of producing a release, that's fine, I guess someone
whould offer to take this job, but the developers should at least "freese
features" for a release and branch on CVS (so this release can have
bigfixes independent of new development.
>
Thanks for the offer. I totally agree to the first part but I think
that there are neither enough active developers at the moment to make
the stable/unstable separation nor the differnces between the two
branches would justify the extra work. Obviously the release - if it
ever comes - shoulf be labeled in cvs.
And again a link into the mailing list archives:
The thread "Target Gtk+2.0 (was Re: plug-ins/renderer.inc)" had some
discussion about creating a branch (if i recall correctly) but finally
there wasn't an agreement ...
Hans
>
>[]s, Fernando Lozano
>
>
-------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org -----------
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along without it. -- Dilbert
