On Apr 7, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> I do not have specific stance on that this is why I hear both arguments.
>
> Now agility is not something that we claim but that we do.
> I think that not having releases that drag on forever is important.
> I prefer to have
> - 3/4 releases full of energy that are time based vs. 2 that are
> slugglish and ends up in few fixes over a long period.
> - this would avoid to have an accumulation of code to integrate and
> laucnh beta too early to reduce the pressure.
> - In addition since people do not understand what is a release
> candidate, then having more frequent release would mean
> that people port more often if they want.
> So we will see. For now the good point is that we can release 1.3 tomorrow
> and this will not be a release maintenance because
> lot of changes are already done.
>
The next steps are:
-> go over the bug tracker and tag as 1.3 just the real important
entries
-> Fix the easy to fix failing tests (just 25 to go)
-> Do another iteration on the build server for complete auto-build to
the artififact we ship.
and:
-> Do another iteration on Cog builds so we can move to Cog only.
I want a 1.3 that is in "we could release today if we wanted" 90% of the time.
--
Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de
INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
