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 21:33:56 +0000 Message-ID: <87vel8eb7f.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> 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 1164144934 30036 80.91.229.2 (21 Nov 2006 21:35:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:35:34 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 21 22:35:31 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 1GmdGr-0003zu-Bs for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:35:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GmdGq-0004oo-OG for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:35:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GmdGS-0004Jj-9F for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:34:48 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GmdGR-0004I8-A6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:34:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GmdGQ-0004Hh-Jt for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:34:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [80.84.72.33] (helo=mail3.uklinux.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GmdGQ-000304-Ey for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:34:46 -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 546B040A901 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:34:40 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [127.0.0.1]) by laruns (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02766F775 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:33:56 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: Guile Development In-Reply-To: <8764dai81b.fsf@laas.fr> ( =?iso-8859-1?q?Ludovic_Court=E8s's_message_of?= "Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:04:16 +0100") 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:6229 Archived-At: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Hi, > > Neil Jerram writes: > >> I've been wondering whether we could make stable releases on a more >> predictable basis than we have done in the past. > > I'm all in favor of what you propose, but... > >> (a) leaving a short while - say 2-3 days - after committing a fix, >> just in case of a glaring mistake that would be picked up by >> another developer building > > 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. Agreed, one week is better. > 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. Yes, good idea. Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel