[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: What I think 1.1 gold needs:
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: What I think 1.1 gold needs: |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:52:30 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 11:59:51PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> For what it's worth, python-dev has this discussion perennially, and
> after the releases of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 in early autumn, the release
> manager remarked that he'd had a fair number of "thank you" mails, and
> that most didn't mention features at all, but of those which did, all
> said something equivalent to "Thank God you added no new features."
I presume they must have been talking about features that are in some way
interface-incompatible because otherwise why would they care enough to
mention it in such strong terms?
Part of the problem is `what's a feature?' [Besides `a documented bug' :]
I mean, obviously adding a new scheme interpreter and toms-all-singing-all-
dancing-super-merge-mode are the sort of things most people would give that
label, but what about the case I mentioned before, where a function is
extended to work in a area where it failed before? One could also call that
a bugfix of sorts, though it's not a core-dump kind of bug, just `missing
functionality' (where that functionality would otherwise be expected).
All I can think to say is `Don't piss off your users in a stable release.'
This depends on the release guy being reasonable, but I think Tom is at
least.
-Miles
--
80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen