On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Sasa Ostrouska <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Matthew Barnes <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I've been kicking around this idea for awhile now, but haven't said >> anything until now. I'm putting it out there as food for thought. >> >> Increasingly I'm feeling like the traditional 6-month release cycle is >> just too short for Evolution. In terms of development, we have a pretty >> short window for landing major changes and allowing adequate time for >> testing before development freezes set in. >> >> But more importantly, our users seem to be constantly playing catch-up >> in terms of supported releases. Because of the delay between upstream >> releases and distro releases, by the time users finally upgrade to a >> newer Evolution, more often than not they're upgrading to a version >> that's either nearing the tail end of its 6-month support window or is >> already unsupported. >> >> That's frustrating, both for users and for me as a developer, but we >> just don't have the manpower to support multiple stable releases and >> still get any kind of significant development work done. >> >> I'd like us to consider moving to a 12-month release cycle, which would >> sync up with GNOME's release schedule annually instead of semi-annually. >> >> Here's my initial proposal, if you guys are open to this: >> >> * Continue with the 6-month releases through the end of the year, just >> because I think we need more lead time for such a major policy change. >> >> * Bump Evolution's major version number to split away from GNOME's >> semi-annual release numbering. Call the upcoming March 2014 release >> Evolution 4.0 (or perhaps even Evolution 2014... I'm open to ideas). >> >> * We would follow GNOME's string change announcement and freeze schedule >> in the months leading up to each March release. >> >> * We would continue releasing stable updates and development snapshots >> at a steady pace. Our release schedule could even be more predictable >> than it is now. We could do, for example, stable releases on the 1st >> Monday of each month and development snapshots on the 3rd Monday. >> >> Obviously there's more details to figure out, but I like the precedent >> we've set with the 3.8 branch, and I think our users appreciate it too. >> >> My feeling is just that at this point in the project's lifespan, our >> users would be better served by a longer support window. They still >> want to see improvements and new features, but more than anything I >> think they just want stability and to see their bugs fixed without >> waiting half a year. >> >> It's just an idea. What do you guys think? >> >> Matt >> >> > More as a user than as a dev, but yes, I fully agree with you. Evolution > is an important piece of software in my business. > I have been using 2.26.3 up to half yer ago, as upgrading all the time in > terms of business is really a pain in the ass and > not worth for the few new features you can get. > > Another thing is that as you say it is important to have a stable and rock > solid application. This is something you can get > with good checking and testing. Of course this needs time and not only. > > So if my voice can have some impact, I'm all for a longer release cycle > and well done development. Things done in a hurry > usually are not good or well done. > > Especially when we talk about free software where contributors have their > real life to take care of. > > Rgds > Saxa > > >> _______________________________________________ >> evolution-hackers mailing list >> [email protected] >> To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers >> > >
_______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list [email protected] To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
