Re: 1.6 and getting back to our release policy.

> Can we please, please do things the other way for 1.6?
>
> Let's say "1.6 will come out approximately six months after 1.5, and
> whatever is ready will go into it." If improved tree-conflicts are
> ready, great. If reflective merges are ready, great. If something
> else is ready, great. But -- and here's the important thing -- if
> only *one* thing is ready, the release should *not* wait for any other
> thing. At six month windows, the price of delaying a not-quite-ready
> feature is not so high, and when it does come out it will be mature.

I'd prefer to say "intend releases to span no more than 6 months"
allowing for those occasions when some really significant piece
gets finished that might be worth releasing without waiting for
the next 6 month release.

As you've suggested, a release definer is the set of features
that are ready to go.

I'd also like to see more attention to releasing the minimal
useful incarnation of a feature sooner rather than attempt to
cover every little variation - of course enough diligence must be
paid to design to ensure that the approach taken does not
unnecessariliy introduce incompatibilities for the completion of
the feature. IMHO the suggestions the complete inability to get
development traction on the 'obliterate' functionality is a
poster-child for this situation.

--
Talden
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org