Hello,
2012/11/28 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> > On 11/27/12 1:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > > On 11/27/2012 04:30 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > >> Hello. > >> > >> Quoting from the previous thread about this subject: > >>> As far as I am concerned, 3.1 could be released anytime now. > >> [Luc Maisonobe, September 14, 2012] > >> > >> Plenty of needed work has been done since then. Most of it could have > been > >> done _after_ releasing 3.1! > >> Most of the current contributors agree that releases should happen more > >> often; yet they don't. > >> I would like that a set of objective criteria be written down that would > >> define when a new release is deemed adequate. [I had suggested some.] > >> This discussion should be held in another thread since (as the above > quote > >> summarizes), it was agreed that the 3.1 release was due. > >> > >> At this point, I propose to start the release process using the "old" > (about > >> to be deprecated) procedure. > >> Indeed, I surely do not want the release to be further delayed because > of > >> "newbie" mistakes on using the new procedure (CMS for the site, etc.). > >> Let's "divide and conquer": We release 3.1 now and allow users to > benefit > >> from the many new features and bug fixes. While they test the new > release, > >> we begin to prepare 3.2 with the new procedure, starting with the site. > > +1 > > Depending on how much happens bet 3.1 and the next one, we could > consider a 3.1.1. > > I have some uncommitted stuff to address MATH-672, but I don't want > to hold up the release for this. If I can't get it finished before > the first RC hits, I will get it in; otherwise it can wait. > I'm +1 too. I also have some uncommitted code for MATH-738. It will have to wait, and I will in fact remove some recently committed code (the package private functions in Gamma and Beta) as I was hopping for more tome to play around with their interface and location (and scope, cf. other thread). This was in fact committed too early, but since it is a lot of code to get Beta right, I was thinking of committing incrementally. Best regards, Sébastien
