I recommend we release 0.56 WITHOUT the slave driver. We recommend 0.56 as a synchronisation point for all of our downstream, since none of the changes in 0.56 are risky and the speed up is so good. I'd be quite happy to see 0.56 become the main downstream version for a while, if we could a couple of riskier ones after this.
We merge the slave driver feature for 0.57 and let it simmer on trunk for a few releases. If we can't be sure it's safe by about 0.60 (or it can't be packaged by downstream) we pull it out again. Padre development has always worked at its best when we just smashed new and risky things onto trunk and then clean up the bodies later, so if you are happy with the slave driver on your machine then lets just drop it on trunk and go with it. The other reason to split it out is that it gives us something new to hype for the next release, as "the one where we save you shitloads of RAM". So in summary, I say lets keep up the tempo and get this puppy shipped now :) Adam K 2010/1/28 Steffen Mueller <[email protected]>: > Hi all, > > Peter Lavender wrote: >> If anyone has any objections to an earlier than normal release let me >> know, otherwise I'll look at releasing 0.56 tomorrow night .au time, >> which for the records will be 1000 UTC, 2100 local time to me. > > no objection, just a note: > > There's this branch in branches/Padre-slave-driver that has the memory > consumption/threading optimizations that Adam blogged about. It works > well on my computer (linux), but it's a pretty devious and significant > change. To the best of my knowledge, it's also only been tested by me > despite my multiple suggestions on IRC that others should give it a > shot. Now, I guess our development model or our developers mindset is > such that it won't get a lot of testing time *unless* I just dump it > into the trunk and let Murphy figure it out. I'm certain there'll be > breakage. > > This suggests two possible routes: > a) Make a release now, then merge the branch into trunk. Buys us time to > fix things. > b) Merge the branch into trunk and delay the release until we're certain > we've fixed the most serious issues. Could make Padre 0.56 an even more > significant release (cf. Adam's blog entry). > > I'd love to have this in the upcoming (hyped) 0.56 release. But it's > quite risky and it might be better to stick with a). What do you guys think? > > Best regards, > Steffen > _______________________________________________ > Padre-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev > _______________________________________________ Padre-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev
