Re: release policy

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Peter,

Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> The thing is that I agree with Ralf here, releases should be made when
> necessary on the stable branch, and when features are complete and
> tested on HEAD.

I agree with both of you!  In addition to that, I'm also extremely keen
to get an idea of how often we'd like to make releases in the absence
of acts of God...

> Say, for a wild example, that we decided the next feature 2.2 release
> would be entirely rewritten in perl

Woah there! Now that's just crazy talk!! I'd rather DIE! Grrr...

> (chosen for the unlikelyhood),

oh, okay then. well, i guess thats allowed.

> we'd
> have to wait until that was done and tested fairly well before release,
> and that may well take a couple of years. And during that time, haha,
> there may have been no bugs fixed on the previous release, because it
> had no bugs :), meaning no libtool release at all for 2 years. That's okay.

I'm not disputing any of that... except for the perl bit... and the bug
free release bit... and the tested fairly well bit...

But seriously, in the absence of such pathological cases, is it
reasonable for us to aim at 4 useful releases per year?  I really do
think it will help to get useful releases out if we agree how often
we'd like to do them.  No deadline, no commitment, no promise, just a
vague notion that it would be nice for our users to have that many
releases.

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature