Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not trying to nail anyone down. I don't think anyone is. I'm not
> *imposing* anything. The roadmap (as has been shown by the last one)
> is *not* set in stone.
We all know that but your roadmap gave a different impression. Instead
of pointing out what we want to achieve you gave a list of dates. Since
we will not match a single one of these dates, it doesn't make sense to
publish such a list.
> Releasing should not be a big deal. It could be as simple as doing
> cvs tag GIMP_2_1_1
> cvs diff -r GIMP_2_1_0 -r GIMP_2_1_1 > the_diff
> In which case, there'd be no reason not to do it often. Currently, we
> impose a standard somewhat stricter on ourselves, which means that
> making a release takes a long time (it can take 7 or 8 hours on a fast
> machine). But who cares if that thing you wanted to fix didn't get
> done? It'll be done for the next release. A release is *not* a
> deadline, it's a liberation of the work of the last 2 weeks.
Doing the release tarball takes about half an hour. What takes time is
to test it, to upload the tarball, put it on the FTP site, add a
bugzilla version, change www.gimp.org to point to the new release,
announce the release on freshmeat, gnomedesktop.org, linuxartist.org
... You can hardly cut down much of this.
But I don't see what you are trying to argument about here. We agreed
that we will do regular releases, we are already doing releases every
two or three weeks. The point is just that I don't want to have a list
that tells me that a release is pending next sunday. I know very well
when it is about time for a release. When the time has come, I can
figure out if the source is in a reasonable state for a release. Then
I can try to find time to do it. If someone else would be doing the
release it would be the very same thing. Now what good does it do if
we tell people some release date that we are not likely to ever meet?
> Well, myself and Sven are in agreement on the tight release plan,
> more or less. I think it might be a little too tight, and I
> personally would have aimed for a first pre-release for guadec, with
> a final 2.2 in August, but I think a 4 month release is
> possible. The *only* difference between my idea and yours and Sven's
> is that I think that giving concrete dates as rough guidelines for
> milestones is better than having bigger milestones every 6 weeks to
> 2 months.
All I can say is that a concrete release date discourages me to the
point where I decide that I will rather be doing something else. As
Brix said, there are enough deadlines in our lives. If GIMP starts to
add more, then for me it's about time to quit with GIMP development. I
just couldn't stand it.
> I respect that you don't want to have to stick to dates. Like I
> said, there will be no Stazi knocking on your door if you don't. The
> roadmap is meant to be specific, but flexible, in my mind. If the
> majority opinion is against that, I will re-do a vaguer roadmap with
> no precise dates.
Some real content in the roadmap instead of meaning-less dates would
be helpful. At perhaps make it a proposal for a roadmap next time.
Gimp-developer mailing list