> Please don't misunderstand me: I don't request _anyone_ to make a > compromise in order to deal with the way _I_ can afford giving spare > time to the FlightGear project. I just ask you (or whom it may belong > to) to acknowledge that such a tight release process makes it > _extremely_ difficult for part-time contributors (like me) to follow > the track, > > Martin.
That's just it. Why should there even be a pre-release? The guys doing POV-Ray put out multiple beta's that are heavily tested for weeks if not months prior to the final release. In their case, however, the releases are much farther apart. Like I said before, maybe we should consider what pre-releases are for, why we do them, and what can be expected when a pre-release is thrown out - i.e. how long should we expect to have to test it? Now, this "observation" is not an invitation for some of you to bare your teeth and throw yourselves out in front of an oncoming truck to "take one" for Curt. It's thrown out for serious and constructive consideration in resolving an obvious issue that has come up in our process. Does anyone have any suggestions? I noticed Norman's thought that branches are one way to address this. I'm not comfortable with branches, really, but I think that's because I have not used them a whole lot and perhaps we ought to look into that, no? Is there any movement to suggest a minimum time span that a pre-release would have life? Jon _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
