Re: [galaxy-dev] Galaxy Release Cycle Length

wouldn't mind to have a 4 or 6 month release cycle in the stable branch if they synchronize better with the major milestones in Galaxy. Thanks, Leon Message: 3 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:57:22 +0200 From: Hans-Rudolf Hotz To: Dave Clements Cc: Galaxy Dev List Subject: Re: [galaxy-dev] Galaxy Re

Re: [galaxy-dev] Galaxy Release Cycle Length

I follow Peter. Shorter release cycles, and I will likely skip updates (as I have done in the past). Longer, and I am starting to implement patches on bitbucket myself to bugs I found, instead of waiting for the next release (which sometimes annoys mercurial - when appropriate I ask for a pull

Re: [galaxy-dev] Galaxy Release Cycle Length

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013, Ido Tamir wrote: > Why the dislike for quick turnover? Could somebody present the arguments > for people not having been at the BOF? > > People don't have to upgrade - unless its breaking changes that e.g. > disable the possibility to download from the public toolshe

Re: [galaxy-dev] Galaxy Release Cycle Length

Why the dislike for quick turnover? Could somebody present the arguments for people not having been at the BOF? People don't have to upgrade - unless its breaking changes that e.g. disable the possibility to download from the public toolshed which forced me to upgrade. The alternative to freque

Re: [galaxy-dev] Galaxy Release Cycle Length

Hi Dave two months is a good time between releases. Much more important than the release cycle length is fixing identified bugs on the release branch as well. Regards, Hans-Rudolf On 08/20/2013 08:36 PM, Dave Clements wrote: Hello all, At one of the GCC2013 Birds of a Feather sessions