Re: Stable releases

[Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>]

ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> I believe 2-3 days is a bit too short, given the current average
> response time on this mailing list.  :-) So I'd rather say one week.

In general I tend to agree, but I'd say it probably depends on the
type of change.  i.e. if I look at the diff against the last stable
release, and the only changes are either minor or fairly clearly
correct, then I'd probably feel fairly comfortable creating a new
release without too much delay.

> And also it'd be nice if the release maker could send a reminder one
> week before making the release so that people have an incentive to
> update their trees and test.

If we maintain the stable tree such that we only commit *very*
conservative changes, then the need for wider testing should be
substantially diminished.  However, with 1.8, I think we've been more
liberal (allowing new features, etc.) than we were with 1.6.  Whenever
we're very conservative, the longer advance warning shouldn't be as
necessary, but it shouldn't hurt either.

In any case, assuming I'm going to continue to be the nominal release
manager, then I'd be likely to send advance notifications to the list.
Of course, I don't have to be the only person handling releases,
though there may be some benefit to having one person familiar with
the process coordinating things.

On the other hand, if we make sure that the stable release process is
well documented, and if we make sure to check with each other before
making a release, then we might not really need an official release
manager.  That could help share the work, and avoid a single point of
failure.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel