Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> writes:
> As I said before - not true. People who helped to get 1.3 stable
> couldn't really focus on trunk development. This purposely
> short-changes anyone who tries to help get a release out the door
> because they'll never have time to do any trunk work as they'll have
> less than a month to work before the next release cycle starts. While
> development activities can run in parallel across developers,
> individual developers have to choose which branch to spend their
> limited time and energy on. -- justin
I see what you're saying. But "short-change" may be too strong a
word. Everyone chooses what they'll work on. If Victoria decides to
work on release N, instead of doing trunk work, she's not being
"shortchanged" -- she could just let someone else carry the load for
release N while she concentrates on trunk. Then she could help out
with N+1 a few months later, if she wants.
In practice, yes, many developers want to be at least somewhat
involved with release work, and that's a good thing. We should be
careful not to release *too* often, as we want to encourage that
involvement.
However, the release load is pretty light until the last couple of
weeks of the process, when testing and signing candidate tarballs
happens. Yes, there's review & voting, but it's really okay to stay
out of that if one needs to concentrate on something for a while --
I've done that with certain releases before, and never felt it was a
big problem.
Let's just take it on a case-by-case basis. Do you feel that
branching 1.4 in February, and thus going through crunch sometime in
March, is too much? We wouldn't have had a crunch since December, and
it's not like the "crunches" are all that dominating, imho...
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jan 30 17:07:05 2006