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). -- Giel
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzoneemail@example.com https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev