From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Stable releases Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:39:20 -0800 Message-ID: <871wnyf25z.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> References: <87bqn5n48n.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <8764dai81b.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1164044390 24500 80.91.229.2 (20 Nov 2006 17:39:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:39:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile Development Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 20 18:39:47 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GmD7T-00089f-6b for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:39:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GmD7S-0000Sv-CQ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:39:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GmD76-00009Y-RP for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:39:25 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GmD75-00006x-18 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:39:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GmD74-00006O-JF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:39:22 -0500 Original-Received: from [70.85.129.156] (helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GmD74-0005WK-3y for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:39:22 -0500 Original-Received: from omen.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0FC90E86; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:39:21 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from raven.defaultvalue.org (raven.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by omen.defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71E2340A9; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:39:20 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by raven.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C21A4355193; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:39:20 -0800 (PST) Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: <8764dai81b.fsf@laas.fr> (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s's?= message of "Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:04:16 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6227 Archived-At: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Court=E8s) 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. --=20 Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 =3D 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 7= 3A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel