If someone ask for my opinion: I agree with this.
Rene Kluwen Chimti -----Original Message----- From: Enver ALTIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: zaterdag 21 oktober 2006 16:29 To: Stipe Tolj Cc: devel@kannel.org Subject: Release process On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 14:33 +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote: > in the past we did always pre-version the development release tree and > then > either backport to the stable version tree or to a "new" stable version tree. > > Hence: 1.5.0 devel -> a) 1.4.2 stable or b) 1.6.0 stable I'm a bit familiar with GNOME release cycle, and let me explain how that works. First of all, their release cycle is very predictable (a major release every 6 months), which is very good and we should do this IMO. Kannel CVS HEAD is 99.9% production state, I can say. Just like Kannel, odd numbers indicate development/beta versions. When they make a release 2.16.0 they branch it on CVS (modulename-2-16), and development continues on CVS HEAD. Old releases never get any new features, only translation updates and bug fixes, and they are committed to the modulename-2-16 branch in CVS. After 2.16.0 stable, any beta version will be numbered 2.17.x and bug-fix-only stable releases will still be named 2.16.x. So I believe we should stick to something like this, we should not add any new features to 1.4.x series and only backport bugfixes (new features will bring new bugs). Any beta release should be named 1.5.x, and when we're ready to make a stable release it should be named 1.6.x. To sum up what I'm saying, the differences of the proposal with the current release system are: * A predictable release cycle. * Branches on CVS for stable releases. * Development continues on HEAD, new features can be added. * Only bug fixes will be committed to last stable series. * Previously stable version (1.2.x) will be declared unmaintained (older than 2 release cycles). What do you think? -- .O. ..O Enver ALTIN | http://enveraltin.com/ OOO Software developer @ Parkyeri | http://www.parkyeri.com/
