On 5/07/09 17:00, Luke Kanies wrote: > On Jul 5, 2009, at 3:40 AM, Brice Figureau wrote: > >> On 5/07/09 4:39, James Turnbull wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Luke Kanies wrote: >>>>> Yes, it was my understanding that #2033 was a feature for 0.26 (I >>>>> don't >>>>> feel it would be right to add new feature while we're in beta). >>>>> It just happened that I was cut off from the Internet a couple of >>>>> weeks >>>>> ago, so that was the perfect time to work on a bigger thing not >>>>> involving redmine :-) >>>> Makes sense. >>>> >>>> I may end up getting more features in 0.25, also, if clients >>>> change my >>>> priorities, which looks like it's possible. >>>> >>> At some point we need to call "enough". We're up to b2. I don't >>> want to end up like Dovecot with b15. I think one (or at the most >>> two more) betas would be a reasonable limit. >> Yes, I completely agree. We should focus on getting to 0 high/ >> important >> bugs. What we can do if we absolutely want to add new features or only >> track them for later is to create a 0.26 branch now and commit those >> there. Or do the reverse and branch 0.25 now and keep 0.26 for the >> development. Choose your poison of course. > > First, I don't think we should have any more betas. We should focus > on getting tickets closed and push for an rc1, rather than more betas, > if at all possible.
Agreed, 0.25 seems to be in good shape. As soon as the more important bugs are fixed (I'm still worried by 2296), then I think we could have a rc1. > As to later releases, I really think we need to switch to something > like the kernel uses, where the 'next' branch is recreated > periodically from the code that is accepted for release. This puts a > higher burden on James as the release maintainer (although not a ton, > since it could pretty easily be turned into a straightforward rake > task), but it makes it trivial to add and remove code chunks from the > branch. > > E.g., the daemontools code, which had broken tests for months, would > have been added initially, but then once the tests were found to be > broken, it would have been removed from the list of code to merge and > the branch would have been recreated. Boom, code gone, and no extra > commits or anything. Yeah, code Darwinism, I like that :-) -- Brice Figureau My Blog: http://www.masterzen.fr/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
