On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --On Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:45 PM -0600 Jeff Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Are you ever going to release a new version, or are we supposed to keep >> building from CVS? That doesn't work very well for ports and package >> maintainers. > > Yeah, the release policy seems non-existent. It'd be nice to actually *see* > a release with the various fixes that have been submitted in the past few > years. Given that this issue comes up every few months with no forward > momentum though, I'm not holding my breath on it.
I'm going to third the sentiment. I would rather see multiple releases made even with just a few bugfixes in each, than wait ages for a large number of fixes to make it. Aiming for a release every month or two if there are changes and bugfixes worth releasing seems like a fairly good schedule, or sooner if any particularly critical bugs have crept in or neat features have gotten in. Before reach release, release a release candidate as well for people to download and try to catch any last minute bugs or regressions as well. Let that simmer for a week before making a final release. So the release process would go like this: 1. Either determine that it's about time for a release (either calendar time, or number of bug-fixes/enhancements). 2. Roll up a release candidate and announce it to the -users and -dev list for final testing. Hold off any changes except for bugfixes to the source repo. 3. If no major bugs found after a week, push out a new release. 4. Wash, rinse, repeat. -Dave !DSPAM:1011,48ee7e07150921224659169!
