I guess i still prefer 0.6.1 for maintenance releases (esp. given the short cycle).
Another supporting argument against even/odd scheme is that this naming doesn't really reflect the actual level of product maturity (e.g. 1.0 this way ends being a "new-feature-being-unstable-beta"? whereas in reality 1.0 is being read as "wow, it's one rock-solid production grade " by most conventions out there. -d On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Geek Gamer <[email protected]> wrote: > Odd / Even releases for cleanup maintenance vs feature additions looks great. > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM, John Conwell <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think it sounds like a good idea. >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On recent threads on the dev@ list, and discussions off-list, it's pretty >>> clear that we need to have "cleanup" be a priority for the next release. >>> >>> How about this for a formal proposal: >>> >>> >>> - The 0.7 release will have issues (both new and on JIRA) be primarily >>> focused on bugfixes / cleanup / API-refactoring / etc, with "new >>> feature"-work only coming in when it's been pushed off for too long, and >>> is >>> close to completion. >>> - All non-"cleanup" items will still be tracked and discussed, but >>> JIRA-tickets related to them will be marked 0.8 at the earliest, and they >>> won't be committed until 0.7 goes out. >>> >>> >>> If we're able to wrap this release up cleanly and get quickly moving on to >>> new features again, maybe we can try this on a more regular basis, with >>> even releases being feature-work, and odd releases being maintenance and >>> cleanup (and hopefully having much shorter turnaround time). >>> >>> What say ye? >>> >>> -jake >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Thanks, >> John C
