From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Stable releases Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:54:59 +0000 Message-ID: <87mz6kea8c.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <87bqn5n48n.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <8764dai81b.fsf@laas.fr> <871wnyf25z.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1164146200 1956 80.91.229.2 (21 Nov 2006 21:56:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile Development Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 21 22:56:38 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 1Gmdan-0000hA-GC for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:55:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gmdan-0006fd-2r for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:55:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gmdaj-0006bz-O4 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:55:45 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Gmdaj-0006aG-1V for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:55:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gmdai-0006Zj-J6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:55:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Gmdai-0007Qr-HC for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:55:44 -0500 Original-Received: from laruns (host86-145-51-69.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.51.69]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E75740B4C8; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:55:43 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0B26F775; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:54:59 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <871wnyf25z.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> (Rob Browning's message of "Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:39:20 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) 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:6231 Archived-At: Rob Browning writes: > 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. Agreed. Because of this discussion, I've been thinking through what we mean by a stable release, and whether we have taken a wrong turn in deciding to try to release more stuff earlier by merging from HEAD into 1.8.x. I think we probably have taken a wrong turn, because I don't think the 1.8.x that we are on the verge of producing can be described any more as a "stable" series. Surely the common connotations of "stable" are that the API is as unchanging as possible, and that the code is only changed in order to fix non-trivial bugs? And on the other hand, if 1.8.x isn't a "stable" series, how does it differ usefully from HEAD? Therefore, my feeling now is that we should revert to traditional "stable" handling for 1.8.x. This would mean not merging enhancements from HEAD such as my debugging stuff and Ludovic's text collation work. It would also mean that Rob's comments about limited testing requirement hold. As far as releasing exciting new stuff is concerned, I suggest we just make unstable 1.9.x releases every now and then. We should flag these very clearly as unstable, and not really worry at all about testing them. > 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. We certainly need at least one familiar person, but I'm sure it would be even better to have more than one. > 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. Yes, I think that would be better. But we all have a lot to learn from you first! Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel