On Jun 15, 2012 6:11 PM, "Iain Lane" <la...@debian.org> wrote: > I'm indeed not on this list so please CC me in any replies that you want > me to see.
(Any chance of you joining? ;) :) > > > For example looking at the coming Fedora 18 development cycle [2] the > > > Alpha freeze is currently 2012-08-14 and Beta freeze is set for > > > 2012-09-18. > > > So for Fedora at least, if we wanted to have ghc-7.4.2+ and Haskell > > > Platform 2012.4 in the next release [...], then I think we would need the final > > > 2012.4 release in August and an alpha/beta release in July. > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QuantalQuetzal/ReleaseSchedule > > The freeze we should be aiming to have all major churn in by is Feature > Freeze. So that's August 23 for this release, and roughly every six > months (give or take a couple of weeks) thereafter. So realistically when would you like to see the 2012.4 release, beta, and alpha? How about a tight schedule for 2012.4 something like this (now that we have the luxury of the ghc-7.4.2 release in our hands:)?: Alpha (2012.3.80.x): June 30 Beta (2012.3.90.x): July 15 Final (2012.4.0.x): August 1 - x's indicate increments for RC's and bugfixes etc: not sure about compatibility of this versioning scheme - anyway just a concept I am putting out here - randomly chosen days that probably need to be re-aligned to weeks Even if HP slips by a week or so if the changes are minor then probably it should still be possible for Ubuntu, Fedora and others to update smoothly from Beta to Final etc. Mark: this is a fair bit earlier than the original proposed schedule - would this work for you this time at all? I know it is over Summer-time but time-wise postponing to HP 2013 will still make the time between 2012.4 and 2013.2 very short. Obviously going forward we don't need to make the schedule so tight: surely we could have a whole month or more for each milestone (alpha, beta, final). > I'd like if if there were snapshot releases (call them > 'alpha', 'beta' and 'release candidate') throughout the development > cycle, so that we can better ensure that we're sticking to the platform > without having to watch the repository. Yes +1: used your idea above :) > I also want to say that we (both Debian and Ubuntu) tend not to stick > too rigidly to the platform's versions of packages. This is for two main > reasons that I can think of Nod, understood. Fedora has also done that somtimes. Anyway I guess we would all prefer to be close to the official platform if possible. :) Jens
_______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
