Re: .3 releases

["Luis Villa" <luis villa gmail com>]

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.

Luis