Hi, On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 09:18:14AM +0100, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> If there's a release goal, that goal blocks a release too. To be honest, I don't think explicit release goals are a good idea in general. New releases should happen as soon an there are any major feature improvements. (And no major new problems introduced.) > The main reason why I'm happy to have a 0.8.9 coming out is that 0.8.8 > had a couple of regressions over 0.8.7, making it unpleasant to play > winterbells [1] :> Indeed, regressions are always problematic -- a new release should never (knowingly) make things worse for users... In fact, I'd consider "regression" to be the major criterion for release blockers. If new functionality is buggy, it's usually still better than not having the functionality, so a release is still an improvement for users... > Seriously, this new release I see more as an improved-stability one > than anything else, Well, 0.8.9 also brings considerable performance and correctness improvements for video playback -- which probably affects most users even more than the stability improvements :-) > Nothing prevents us to ship a 0.8.10 in a few months Indeed, I hope to see the next release pretty soon :-) As OpenVG is scheduled to land shortly after 0.8.9, there is already a candidate for triggering this... > So, is your candidate blocker in the Important set already ? I didn't have any specific bugs in mind. Just wanted to bring it up, as Benjamin's mail made it sound as if "goes up in smoke" was the only criterion for a release blocker :-) -antrik- _______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
