On 3 Jul 06, at 9:30 AM 3 Jul 06, Brett Porter wrote:
On 28/06/2006 8:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
When we last discussed it on the development process, we talked
about instead doing regular promotion of the automated builds
(eg, roughly once a week we say this is a stable build with
something new/a good fix/etc, let's ask people to test it).
I'd really like to try that (and add anything to continuum to
make it easier :)
Yes, but we still have to make some official public releases. I
don't think we can just release Continuum generated builds and
then just release 1.1? Or do I misunderstand what you're talking
about.
I think we are talking about the same thing, but it's just mechanics.
So a fundamental thing I think we need is regular builds that at
least passed the basic integration tests (ie, they compiled and the
server started). These are what we have now, though I'd rather they
came from Continuum and were more easily accessible to joe schmo
just coming to the web site.
The next thing is regularly approved builds. Currently we schedule
and do the alpha/beta thing, but what I'm thinking is not going
through the whole release process that is time consuming and doing
something more regular - ie every week or two we say there's been
a few new features, or a significant internal change, or some bad
bugs fixed and we want people to test it, so we check a particular
build is reasonably stable and then vote (or something) to promote
it - and we put that up on the web site as the latest test build.
It's somewhere between unstable nightlies and really stable releases.
So you're suggesting we not doing any official alpha/beta releases?
I guess what I'm thinking of is something like IDEA's EAP program.
Then the final release would what we do now: produce an RC which we
intend to be the actual binary, call for testers and vote. Release
that, or produce another one, then push it out to the mirrors and
announce.
Cheers,
Brett
Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
