On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 03:10:33PM -0400, Larry Jones wrote:
> The only differentiation is between official releases (1.9, 1.10, etc.),
> which are stable and well tested, and interim release (1.10.1, 1.10.2,
> etc.), which may not be as stable and are not as well tested. I was
> speaking just of interim releases which may contain bug fixes, new
> features, or, most often, some of each. I don't see any pressing need
> to change that in the future.
I believe I do see a need, or at least a strong want (though I'm
willing to be corrected).
Why is it so long between official releases? I'm not sure, but
here's one possibility: it takes quite a while to test a version
well enough to declare it stable enough to be worthy of
official-release status (this part's no guess :-) But the world
won't hold still; people keep committing new (stability-risking)
code, effectively forcing the beta-test period to start over.
And indeed, the people in a position to declare a feature freeze
are themselves too anxious to squeeze in one more thing first.
If this is indeed the problem (or even a significant fraction of
the problem), it argues for separate "development" and "stable"
branches, as Pavel Roskin suggested:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2000 at 16:57:20 -0400, Pavel Roskin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I believe that the 1.11 should be the branch point. The stable
> branch would be used for high-priority fixes only. Developers on the head
> branch should feel free to make radical changes.
and as other open-source projects have already discovered.
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
[Microsoft's] www.hotmail.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) ... on FreeBSD
- Netcraft's "What's that site running?" service, 12-Jun-2000
