On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:36:29AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/13/2013 10:30 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Fair enough. But I think you're talking about Step Two. There is more
> > work on what "stable" means, what time schedules to use, etc. That's
> > Step One.
> In private mail, you also asked for tighter definition of the various
> trimesters of stability (which is an interesting choice of terminology in my
> own personal life right now, but I digress...). Here's my thinking:
> Tri 1: Trunk builds and passes tests, but may have crazy new,
> sweeping-change types of features on it. We've tried to be
> forward-thinking, but who knows if these are the APIs/protocols/etc. that
> we'll wind up with in the release. At the end of this period, we might say
> we're merely "build stable". We could ship an alpha at the end of this
> period to get the crazy new features into the public's hands for user
> acceptance testing.
I like the idea of sprinkling alpha/beta releases along the way.
> Tri 2: Trunk builds and passes tests, and the crazy stuff is still getting
> hammered into release-worthiness, but we're not allowing any more crazy
> stuff in. Smallish features and enhancements are fine, but nothing like a
> WC-NG or Ev2 or FS-NG or.... At the end of this period, we would say we're
> "feature stable", and could ship a beta release.
> Tri 3: Trunk is feature-complete. Oh, and it builds and passes tests. :-)
> We're serious about getting this thing ready to release, now. Strictly
> speaking, this "period" of trunk's life extends until the final release is
> cut by taking the "release branch" side of the fork in the road. But we
> don't want to lock down the trunk indefinitely, so we get as much
> stabilization done on the trunk as we can before branching for release
> stabilization and reopening the trunk for a new "first trimester".
Which trimester is concurrent to the "1.N.x branched, but 1.N.0 not released
Received on 2013-06-17 15:57:25 CEST