On 25.02.2015 12:30, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org
> <mailto:ben_at_reser.org>> wrote:
>
> I'm still working on the CHANGES file for 1.9, it's taking longer
> than I
> anticipated since it's been roughly 9 months since we last did a
> major update
> (and I forgot how long that one took me).
>
> The original thinking for a beta was to get something moving while
> we finished
> up a few things we knew we wanted in 1.9 (svn info --show-item,
> external
> pinning). But I'm starting to think these things are close enough
> that given
> the time it's taking me to finish up CHANGES we may be ready for a
> rc1 as soon
> as those are done.
>
>
> I think we should have a beta as soon as feasible instead of
> waiting for a rc some time later and here is why:
>
> * Keep momentum in the 1.9 release process.
> * Enable / trigger people to get their 1.9.x build setup finalized
>
> * Take off some of the pressure to complete & merge the
> two candidate feature branches.
> * Don't rush the "admin" work either, e.g. API review.
>
> * Concerning the extra effort, we will release 1.7.x, 1.8.x and
> 1.9rc within a short window of time. Adding 1.9.0beta doesn't
> seem to make it much worse.
+1 for all of the above reasons.
There is one rather large-ish reason to not roll a beta: our release
process isn't exactly automated, there's a lot of manual fiddling
involved for the RM. It would be nice if someone volunteered to help Ben
with the releases, at least we could split these 4 in to 2x2.
-- Brane
Received on 2015-02-26 23:37:49 CET