Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You're welcome to just keep the 1.8 (release) branch instead of CVS > HEAD. It's only fair to _US_ that you verify that a bug exists before > passing it on. Something like this would have been a simple > source-code check to verify "oh, that's already been fixed."
I agree completely that a source-code check is appropriate, and I will do that in the future. As you note, in this case that would have been sufficient. > Having multiple builds is relatively easy. I've got /opt/gnucash-cvs, > /opt/gnucash-1.8, and /opt/gnucash-g2 on my system. I can run > whichever version I want by specifying the appropriate path. It works > quite well for a number of people. Right, but I have limited numbers of computers at my disposal. It's the overhead of building the lastest cvs that is the obstacle. > Releases require non-zero effort. It takes a good deal of time to get > the translations finished, tag the release, re-test all the code, > package it up, re-test the package, and then get it to our builders to > make new packages. This detracts from the work we want to do -- > getting the g2 port finished. We have precious few developer > resources as it is to put out what many of us consider "frivolous > releases". Of course I agree quite completely. I'm not saying "release faster"; I'm saying that one reason for regular releases is because users will report bugs against the latest release, and that's all it's really fair to ask them to track. 3-6 months definitely counts as "regular releases" in my book. Thomas _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
