Re: Release Cycle to low!
- From: Kjartan Maraas <kmaraas broadpark no>
- To: Ali Akcaagac <aliakc web de>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Release Cycle to low!
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:55:49 +0100
ons, 18.02.2004 kl. 18.00 +0100, skrev Ali Akcaagac:
> On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 03:09 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > GNOME Development Release 2.5.5
> Sorry for this little compliant but don't you think you are throwing the
> releases like warm cakes now ? The 2.5.4 release is still quite HOT and
> yet 2.5.5 shows up 4 days after 2.5.4 ?
Because it's good to get new fixes out in the wild.
> I think you should give people a break and have them breathe for a
> while. I mean when you go and release GNOME every say 2-3 weeks then
> it's enough time for people to compile the released Tarballs, test them
> and do serious bugreports.
They can always concentrate on the bugs that affect them the most and
they don't have to rebuild everything because there's a new release out.
> People do complain now because 'after a few days of painful compiling'
AFAIK this is the first complaint :)
> Assuming this:
> Now people start to test GNOME 2.5.4 find some bugs and report them to
> b.g.o and immediately they get told to update to 2.5.5 because chances
> are that they are fixed already. Hard to tell this to someone who just
How is this different from being told that it's fixed in CVS and to use
that or wait for the next tarball?
> Well I do believe my explaination lacks in some areas but I do believe
> that the one or other got the key message. I would like to ask whether
> the release cycle can be kept in a normal state say all 3-4 weeks
> otherwise it doesn't make sense pressing the developers to release
> Tarballs which no one can really test because of short release cycles.
It makes it easier to keep the tarballs passing make distcheck and so
keeps the extra workload on the maintainers to a minimum. As Jeff
already said everyone doesn't have to build *every* single tarball.
] [Thread Prev