On Wednesday 14 January 2009, Petr Rockai wrote: > Dan Pascu <[email protected]> writes: > > I can understand why significant changes should not go into a release > > the day before it is going out, but come on, even not knowing Haskell > > I can still read that the patch does nothing more than use putDoc > > instead of putDocLn (which is putDoc plus an extra line). Such > > trivial bug fixes shouldn't be put on a shelf waiting another few > > months before users can benefit from them (do not forget that few > > people build darcs from source and even fewer build the current tree, > > most of them just use a binary made after a release or whatever comes > > packaged by their distribution). > > Such trivial fixes, after the release candidate is out, require another > RC cycle, which is a week. So it's either: > 1) we slip the release a week, this fix included > 2) we release on time, and release 2.2.1 in two or three weeks, this > fix included (and hopefully some other) > > I vote for 2. If anyone disagrees, please voice your opinion > (otherwise, I take the default, ie. option 2).
2 sounds as a reasonable compromise to me. I would not want to ask anyone to delay a release for such a small matter. My request was made with the consideration that such a trivial fix, that is obvious that it can't break anything, can be slipped in even in the last minute. Just so that I understand the release process better, you say that a release candidate will not be released if any change occurs, but it will become the next release candidate; then when no changes are made to a release candidate over a given time period, it is renamed to final and released? -- Dan _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
