Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 1/27/06, Julian Foad <email@example.com> wrote:
>>Sorry to put a damper on it. I know you will want it officially released as
>>soon as possible, but remember that you can always make your own release
>>that's, say, v1.4.0 + Serf, if you or your employer wants to be using a
>>close-to-official version of it sooner.
> No, I can't: only the Subversion team can make a release.
Whatever made you think that? Only the Subversion team can make a release of
"official" Subversion, but anyone can release their own version that is similar
to the official version. (That is what I meant by "close-to-official"; I
didn't mean it would be partly blessed by the team, though it might be.)
We explicitly document the process for building a release version so that (a)
anyone can learn how to make an "official" release (tagged in the central
repository, announced to the world by the Subversion team) and (b) anyone can
make their own release of whatever Subversion-derived code they like, and call
it what they want and use it within their own company or announce it to the
world or whatever.
> The point here is that because a few people want an accelerated
> release schedule for 1.4,
I get the impression more people want that than want to wait for Serf. :-(
> it means that features ready at branch-time
> will now have to wait until 2007.
Now you've really lost me. It sounds like you're exaggerating because you feel
aggrieved that I was unfair. I tried to be fair; sorry if I seemed to go on
about the negatives and didn't say anything or enough in praise and confidence
of your work.
I respect you as a developer, Justin, and believe you'll make a good job of
this and reasonably soon.
But I really can't believe you meant that sentence literally; if you did,
please explain - especially "ready" and "2007".
> As we've talked about at length before, doing minor releases more than
> twice a year is a bad and confusing thing for users. IIRC, I believe
> Greg Hudson and I debated this a long time ago, and now I see the
> wisdom in his comments and now support slower release cycles.
Ah, now that's a discussion I'd like to see or hear. ("We've talked" doesn't
include me there.) Do you know if it's archived?
> I'd rather we were slow and steady with lots of good improvements
> bundled together rather than rushing minor releases out the door every
> three months with one new feature. I want Subversion releases to be
> noteworthy. I want the list of new features to be long and impressive
> and to entice our users that it's really worth it to upgrade. If it's
> just to put a release out with one new feature, I feel that we're
> wasting their (and our) time. -- justin
If we can't find an archive of that discussion, maybe we'll have to have it
again. Obviously there is merit in that approach, but I get the impression the
shorter release cycles are more generally favoured.
Imagine we were doing a yearly cycle. We have just put out v1.3, so Serf will
have to wait for the January 2007 version 1.4. Would you honestly feel happier
with that, in your current situation, than with just-missing May 2006 and
having to wait for September instead?
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Sat Jan 28 00:19:33 2006