On 28/06/2006 8:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
When we last discussed it on the development process, we talked about
instead doing regular promotion of the automated builds (eg, roughly
once a week we say "this is a stable build with something new/a good
fix/etc, let's ask people to test it").
I'd really like to try that (and add anything to continuum to make it
easier :)
Yes, but we still have to make some official public releases. I don't
think we can just release Continuum generated builds and then just
release 1.1? Or do I misunderstand what you're talking about.
I think we are talking about the same thing, but it's just mechanics.
So a fundamental thing I think we need is regular builds that at least
passed the basic integration tests (ie, they compiled and the server
started). These are what we have now, though I'd rather they came from
Continuum and were more easily accessible to joe schmo just coming to
the web site.
The next thing is regularly approved builds. Currently we schedule and
do the alpha/beta thing, but what I'm thinking is not going through the
whole release process that is time consuming and doing something more
regular - ie every week or two we say "there's been a few new features,
or a significant internal change, or some bad bugs fixed and we want
people to test it", so we check a particular build is reasonably stable
and then vote (or something) to promote it - and we put that up on the
web site as the latest "test" build. It's somewhere between unstable
nightlies and really stable releases.
I guess what I'm thinking of is something like IDEA's EAP program.
Then the final release would what we do now: produce an RC which we
intend to be the actual binary, call for testers and vote. Release that,
or produce another one, then push it out to the mirrors and announce.
Cheers,
Brett