Re: .3 releases

On 1/24/07, Elijah Newren <newren gmail com> wrote:
On 1/24/07, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> Discussion on IRC right now...
> Some maintainers have a hard time finding time to do stable .3 releases.
> And they already don't have enough time for 2.17.
> Some pointed out that no distro is using .3 releases, so it looks like
> much effort for nothing.

Hmmm...seems to reflect my habits a bit as well; I've often treated .3
releases as optional, only making them if there were important
bugfixes I wanted to make available.  I know that some module
maintainers may feel like fixing bugs on the stable branch is useless
if we don't make a release (I would), and even if distributors don't
use a full GNOME 2.even.3 release, they might include individual
package updates.

Maybe we should just explicitly state somewhere that additional
package releases are optional for .3 releases, and that we're just
trying to publicize any important fixes in modules that do make
releases?  Does that sound sane, or am I talking crazy?

FWIW, as a distributor, I wouldn't ship anything except .0, since all
the freezes go up in smoke after .0, making them likely to be less
stable than .0, not more so. But I'm quality-paranoid.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]