Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] What makes Rhythmbox 0.9.3? =)

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 08:48 +0100, Martin Jeppesen wrote:
> If we are talking developers versions, then I don't think these should
> hold a new release back. But most definitely if we are talking stable.

The problem being that we don't really have "stable releases" and
"developer releases" at the moment. Technically we are calling them
"developer releases", however the actual stable branch (0.8) is
unmaintained, deprecated, and we suggest people use 0.9.x release

> I think it would be a good idea to release often (about one pr. month)
> and perhaps a 6 months cycle between stable and unstable?

That's basically the Gnome release cycle, and there have been discussion
about Rhythmbox following that.

If we were to follow that closely, we would have just entered Feature
Freeze, which means that we could not add any new features for 8 weeks
(when the 2.15 release cycle starts). Getting a stable series started
again would be nice, but follow the Gnome freezes would mean cutting
back on the nice new features we have been getting recently.

That said, we wouldn't have to follow the Gnome freezes (unless we
wanted to propose Rhythmbox for the Desktop, which some people have
suggested). If we aim to have a 0.10 stable series out at the same time
as Gnome 2.14 we can, we just need to declare a release that is
reasonable bug-free the start of 0.10.

It would be good to have a stable series again, and coinciding with
Gnome 2.14 is probably a good target. I'm sure exactly how we do this
will be a matter of some debate, but I'm open to suggestions.


James "Doc" Livingston
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We
don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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