Martin Furter wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
>> Martin Furter wrote:
>>> And STATUS already contains a few things for the next micro release.
>>> Who cares if it's called 1.5.2 or 1.6.0?
>>
>> We should *all* care about such things. A new minor version may mean
>> new APIs we live with for the foreseeable future. It may mean working
>> copy format bumps. It may mean new repository formats. These aren't
>> the kinds of things you just push onto the user base every 3 months
>> because you're in some kind of unnatural hurry to whip out releases.
>> Each minor release comes with promises; every promise paid for with
>> maintenance effort. Please don't be so flippant about such matters.
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't want to sound like that. Especially not for the
> general case.
Cool.
>> Now, it might be true that right now, we've none of these "promise
>> problem points" queued in the trunk since 1.5.0 was branched. If
>> that's the case, we aren't paying that particular maintenance cost
>> right now, so that doesn't count against doing 1.6.0 over 1.5.2. But
>> as a general statement ... well, see my first paragraph.
>
> Right. But look at the history of subversion. About 3 month after
> (almost) every release a few smaller features had been committed to
> trunk. Some with API changes, some without. But these features had to
> wait until a 'big iron' had been committed which is 'worth a release'.
> I just wanted to say "smaller things can be worth a release too" because
> I had to wait a long time for some of the small ones.
Yeah, I understand that. It's a balance that's tough to find. I think
that, 1.5.0 excepting, we've done a pretty good job of it.
OT: Another interesting line of thought: is a month of release soak time
overkill for only three months of dev-work? *Shrug*
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-08-08 20:26:14 CEST