bugs buggy schreef:
> On 9/24/08, Giel van Schijndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> bugs buggy schreef:
>>> On 9/22/08, Freddie Witherden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> This is not a good use of developer time -- which could be better
>>>> spent on 2.2 -- ensuring that we never get into this situation again.
>>> This about sums it up.
>>> Developer time is short, so we need to do what will be best for
>> developers.
>>> The whole predicament of not having a release for such a long period of
>> time
>>> *IS* the problem.
>> So we agree on the problem: "we need a release soon". The difference is
>> that I think we can get 2.1 out faster than we can get 2.2 out.
> I don't really know what you mean by getting 2.1 faster out the door than
> 2.2.
> We would have to do the same thing for 2.1 beta 5, or 2.2 alpha/beta 1.
> Just tag them, and compile it, and then have the build bot create it right?
> That takes care of windows.

For 2.2 from trunk we'd have to get rid of several changes to keep those
out of a release for now. E.g. the SQLite stuff as it's only half done,
and I don't intend to maintain that stuff when it's only half finished.
There may be more things that require ripping out before release.

> If you were thinking, to remove features from 2.2 for the release, then I
> see no (good) reason you should do that.  We *want* to know all the issues
> involved with 2.2 (trunk).

Allowing features to enter also means obligating ourselves to maintain
them. Read above for SQLite...

> We do *not* want to have a repeat of beta 4 again, we do *not* want to wait
> many months to find out that someone made something worse, and then they
> have no time to fix the faulty patch now.  We *do* want as many testers as
> possible.

Agreed, but some code could be considered too experimental for release
(but stable enough for trunk). I don't want to waste time on maintaining
experimental code in a release.

> If it makes you feel better, we can do a multi-release.
> By that, I mean have a 2.1 beta 5, and have a 2.2 alpha/beta 1 release
> candidate.

Sure, and AFAIK we can release 2.1_beta5 right now. I.e. take current
2.1 HEAD, tag it and release the tarballs (binaries would have to come
in later).


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Warzone-dev mailing list

Reply via email to