On Friday 14 July 2006 06:05, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> This really is an excellent point and makes me think that we may
> want to consider elaborating on the Python release cycle to include
> a gamma phase or a longer release candidate cycle. OT1H I think
> there will always be people or projects that won't try anything
> until the gold release, and that if we've broken anything in their
> code we simply won't know it until after that, no matter how
> diligent we are. OTOH, a more formal gamma phase would allow us to
> say "absolutely no changes are allowed now unless it's to fix
> backward compatibility". No more sneaking in new sys functions or
> types module constants <wink> during the gamma phase.
alpha 1: April 5, 2006 [completed]
alpha 2: April 27, 2006 [completed]
beta 1: June 20, 2006 [completed]
beta 2: July 11, 2006 [completed]
rc 1: August 1, 2006 [planned]
final: August 8, 2006 [planned]
Four months would seem to me to be quite long enough as a release
cycle. Extending it means far more work for everyone - either we have
special checkin rules for the trunk for a longer period of time
(requiring extra monitoring by people like myself and Neal), or we
branch earlier, requiring double commits to the trunk and the branch
for bugfixes.
I also strongly doubt that making a longer "release candidate" cycle
would lead to any significant additional testing by end-users.
Anthony
--
Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
