On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 12:05 +0100, Remco Gerlich wrote: > On Nov 9, 2007 11:07 AM, Jarek Zgoda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Malcolm Tredinnick napisał(a): > > The next release will almost certainly be written as "1.0". > > > > Bad news. We have a policy to use only published versions of libraries, > > so our way from 0.96.x to all sweet improvements like unicode will be > > longer... > > Basically, the current policy means that they're doing lots of > different releases - every trunk revision is a release :-( > > At least, that's how I see it when one app is written against rxxxx, > another against ryyyy...
You're entitled to view it that way, but it's not at all accurate. Plenty of code will run against many, many revisions simultaneously. This was addressed in a reply earlier in this thread. > Surely if it's stable enough to recommend to people that they just use > trunk, it's stable enough to release a 0.97? Any huge issue that comes > up can always be a 0.97.x. All the objections earlier also apply to > people using trunk. You write as if making a release is zero effort. Also as if I didn't even write my original reply where I outlined some of the reasons why making a release isn't zero impact for both the maintainers and the users. In my earlier reply, I also addressed how it's possible to have an application that runs against both 0.96 and trunk's HEAD, or near to it. It's called parallel releases and is a very common software practice. Finally, for everybody who feels that they really want to write something in this thread about why there should be a 0.97, please accept that (a) we are aiming for 1.0 and trying to read or intentionally misread motivations into that, such as claiming it might be a year away and every checkin requires a new release of third-party code, is somewhere between speaking from no knowledge of the situation and deliberately misrepresenting things and (b) this all came up about a month ago with a similarly "can't make everybody happy resolution" in [1]. All the arguments raised there, both for and against making a release, remain valid. It might sound harsh, but nothing's changed since then. It's very time consuming to go around again on this topic (in fact, it will slow down the next release, and I gather people in this thread want that as soon as possible). [1] http://groups.google.com/group/django-users/browse_frm/thread/9cc40f9273d61e1d/1a106a5dcb0233d0 Thanks, Malcolm -- If it walks out of your refrigerator, LET IT GO!! http://www.pointy-stick.com/blog/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
