> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:53:03PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote:
> >...
> > However, the bugs are getting more subtle and take longer to debug and
> > fix. With our current process, a great deal of new code can be
> > committed while the gnarly problem in last tarball is being debugged.
> > Why would we think that the new code is any less likely to contain
> > serious bugs than the previous set of changes? How do we get off this
> > treadmill?
>
> We got "off the treadmill" by stopping this silly business of holding up
> tarballs.
>
> Snap a tarball. Give it a once over. Release it as an alpha. Bam. Done.
>
> Come back a week later and upgrade it to a beta. Not so hard.
>
>
> We are right back where we were last year: releases take forever. We have
> completely lost the "snap. release." routine. Releases of *any* quality
> can be happening every couple weeks or even faster. But since everybody is
> "oh no, it *MUST* be a beta" we're waiting forever. It's silly.
Then we should make binaries available for alphas. I don't give a flying *** whether
we
label a release alpha or beta. If it is decent, we need to make binaries available.
Bill
