[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Expected post-1.0 release cycle?

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2003-12-23 13:26:28 CET

On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 07:48:48PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, December 21, 2003 12:24 PM -0500 Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
> wrote:
> > * We should evaluate how often we see evidence that anyone is using
> > them; if we don't, we should consider giving up on them, in which case
> > we would only make stable releases (and testing releases during the
> I don't see how you can evaluate whether people are using it or not. You
> release it and move on. Why would it be harmful?

Confusion. Somebody might download a developer snapshot, yet thinking or
hoping for a stable release. It is relatively easy to lose the labelling
of "developer only" between us and that nifty little software repository
managed by some user group off in Kansas.

[ hmm. will we have Subversion User Groups? SUGs? :-) ]

> I think that'd be the biggest reason to have 'trunk' snapshots: binaries. A
> lot of people dislike building from source even if they have a compiler, too.
> That's been our biggest complaint within the ASF - people are finding buggy
> binary packages and they don't want to build from source - it'd actually be
> easier for them to build from source than use some of the broken binary
> packages out there, but we haven't been able to make the case they should
> build from source instead.

This is only true for stable releases. I think it would be rare for
somebody to seriously demand a developer-release binary. When people are
looking for prebuilts, they are usually looking for stable builds.

> Each 1.y+1 release should supercede the previous
> one from our perspective and close the previous 1.y release down.

Per my other email: yah.

> I don't think we should be *that* conservative with minor releases. Major
> version bumps? Definitely: only one per year, if that. -- justin

Major version bumps imply an API or protocol or data change. My hope is
that we will *never* see that. But that is totally unrealistic since we
haven't seen a ton of widespread usage yet. Thus, my "realistic" desire is
that we hold onto the 1.x release for about two years, then we bump to
2.x, and we never bump the major version again. I would hope that we learn
enough within two years of feedback to build SVN such that we can lock
things down around a 2.x API. But even that won't hold, so any sort of 3.x
would be (say) 5+ years after that, when we move into larger functionality
domains and discover new needs which impact our APIs.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 23 13:30:51 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.