Hi all, I also tend to agree with the argument that says a release should be out as soon as possible, given that 1) it improves usability/functionality and 2) at a minimum, it does not include new known bugs. The arguments are more or less aligned with Nico’s response on the matter.
Focusing on the bug that spiked the current discussion, I agree with Till that this is alarming, as it passed all previous testing efforts, but I have to add that if nobody so far encountered it, we could release 1.3 now and fix it in the upcoming 1.3.1. Kostas > On May 31, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Nico Kruber <n...@data-artisans.com> wrote: > > IMHO, any release that improves things and does not break anything is worth > releasing and should not be blocked on bugs that it did not cause. > There will always be a next (minor/major) release that may fix this at a > later > time, given that the time between releases is not too high. > > Consider someone waiting for a bugfix/feature that made it into 1.3.0 who--if > delayed--would have to wait even longer for "his" bugfix/feature. Any new > bugfixes (and there will always be more) can wait a few more days or even a > few > weeks and may be fixed in 1.3.1 or so. > > > Nico > > On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 20:21:41 CEST Till Rohrmann wrote: >> - Not sure whether it's a good argument to defer fixing major bugs because >> they have not been introduced with 1.3.0. It's actually alarming that these >> things have not been found earlier given that we test our releases >> thoroughly. >
