On Wednesday 02 December 2015 22:23:22 Andreas Löf wrote: > I think it makes sense to make development releases in a regular fashion > as long as there is new content/bugfixes in each release.
Sure. If there are no additions or changes between two releases other than translation updates, that release should be postponed to the next month instead. On Wednesday 02 December 2015 22:23:22 Andreas Löf wrote: > How would these releases be managed from a practical point of view? > Would there be code-freezes and merge windows before each release or > will we have a hard requirement that master should always be releasable? I've always been of the opinion that people should regard master as a releasable branch 24/7. We are all unpaid volunteers, so it's perfectly within reason for any of us to disappear without notice. In other words, people should always ask themselves: "what would happen if I was hit by a truck after pushing this". It's never a good thing when incomplete or broken code is left abandoned in a production branch. Furthermore, if a security vulnerability is found, we ought to be able to release patched versions as soon as possible disregarding everything else. It's never been a rule that's fully enforced beyond requiring the source code to compile without warnings, but I think it works fine as a guideline. At least in my opinion, given the size of our project it works much better than tying everyone up and forcing them to respect strict merge windows all the time. All this is, of course, independent of the fact that all development series must eventually reach a feature freeze for the first beta for the next stable series. -- Regards Ignacio R. Morelle <shadowm> _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
