On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:01:40AM +0100, Liviu Andronic wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Scott Kostyshak <skost...@lyx.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 01:20:35PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >> Le 11/11/2015 09:02, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >> >Below is a tentative schedule for releasing 2.2.0. I think the schedule > >> >is slightly on the aggressive side, and that is because I think the > >> >state of our master branch is already relatively stable. > >> > > >> >alpha: tag and tar this week and announce this weekend or Monday > >> >beta: beginning of January > >> >RC: end of March > >> >final: end of April > >> > >> I would have hoped for a more aggressive schedule, I just hope that we are > >> not bound by it. If this lasts too long, there will be a lot of frustration > >> and pressure for adding more features. So trying to be fast also has value. > > > > What stage(s) would you propose making shorter? > > > I think in the past, without major deal-breaking bugs, the jumps from > one pre-release to another took fewer than 2-3 weeks. And that's when > we were dealing with obscure crashes... Now master is (very) stable, > no major crashes. Unless we have major issues that need addressed and > fixed prior to this major release, I think the general hope around is > that we get an RC and even the actual release by the end of the year, > or perhaps very early next year.
The time between 2.1.0beta1 was 9 months. The time between 2.0.0alpha1 and 2.0.0 was 13.5 months. In my proposed schedule I proposed 5.5 months. I thought this was quite aggressive, but if there is enough agreement for making a more aggressive schedule we can discuss a change. Perhaps the concern is that the actual release dates are always later than the scheduled release dates? Would others prefer to shorten the intervals between release stages? Or to skip alpha and just move to beta? Scott
