On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Roan Kattouw <[email protected]> wrote: > I like this idea, although it does mean pushing back the > iwtransclusion branch merge to 1.20, presumably. But then you say: >
That thought occurred to me, it would require pushing iwtransclusion back a bit. >> If we go this route, I don't see any reason we couldn't ship 1.19 by year end >> (or if we really push, 11.11.11, as the other thread suggested). > We'd be branching 1.18 in mid-May (when 1.17 goes final). If we > release a beta of 1.19 in November and it's a small release, we should > branch in October (or branch in November and release by year end). > That means there'd be 5 or 6 months of development in 1.19. I'm on > board with shooting for a clean and polished release, but we shouldn't > make /any/ release longer than 4 months, and this one should probably > be 3 IMO. Also, 6 months is a long time for a ban on rewrites. > > I've seen a few suggestions about release schedules on this list now, > and all of them seem to, implicitly or explicitly, accept that > releases contain outrageous amounts of code and take more than 3 > months to stabilize, just because that's what happened with 1.17. > Instead, I'd like us to be ambitious about not repeating the 1.17 > fiasco, and aiming for a shorter cycle. Tim is right in the other > thread that cycles can be too short, but I think once every 3-4 months > is good middle ground. In any case, if stabilizing a release to even > get it to the first beta takes more than a month, something is > fundamentally wrong IMO. > My math was bad :) I was mainly looking at how long it took us to stabilize and release 1.17, and didn't really think we could get more than 3 releases (1.17, 18 and 19) out by year end. I think anything more ambitious than that is a little crazy on our part. But you're right, 6 months is a long time to say "don't rewrite stuff." That's why I asked for feedback. >> think it would >> put us in a really good place to move forward into 2012, and help get us back >> into a somewhat regular release pattern. >> > I agree and applaud this goal, though per the above I'm not entirely > sure we mean the same thing when we say "regular release pattern". > Regular here being "more than 1 and a half releases a year" :p -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
