On 11/13/13, 10:03 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Thursday, 14 November 2013 at 02:47:15 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
I think 6 months between releases is entirely too long. I'd really
like us to be back closer to the once every month or two rather than
only twice a year. The pace of change is high and increasing (which
is a good thing). Release early and often yields a smoother rate of
introducing those changes to the non-bleeding-edge part of the
community. The larger the set of changes landing in a release the
more likely it is to be a painful, breaking, experience.
I agree. There's really no reason not to release frequently as long as
the release process isn't overly burdensome on the Release Czar
(Walter's term, not mine :P). Git's cheap and powerful branching means
it's easy to work on changes of nearly any size and still have a rapid
release cycle.
6 months between releases means a regression that was introduced in the
latest version requires you to wait another 6 months for the fix which
means you are running a version that is a year out of date.
Not so. The very reason for bugfix releases is to ensure that critical
fixes are provided as quickly as feasible.
On the other hand you will have six months to prod and poke at the betas
to ensure that the impending release is void of bugs. And with a monthly
release of betas, the opportunity to test out new features and fixes
within, at most, one month after their implementation.
Again fixes can always be pushed out as bugfix releases on as frequent
or infrequent a term as the situation warrants.
--
Andrew Edwards
--------------------
http://www.akeron.co
auto getAddress() {
string location = "@", period = ".";
return ("info" ~ location ~ "afidem" ~ period ~ "org");
}
