On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 10 Feb 2011, at 17:29, Gabriel Farrell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Robert Newson
>> wrote:
>>> You're absolutely right. 1.0.2 was ready to go quite some time ago but
>>> several bugs were found as we were releasing. We decided, as a team,
>>> that we couldn't ship with the bugs that were found, so we elected to
>>> fix them and delay the release. I think that was the right decision.
>>> We should only release when we feel the software is ready, not when
>>> some ultimately arbitrary day looms.
>>
>> I completely agree here: there should be no arbitrary release dates.
>> However, I'm also in favor of increasing the frequency of minor point
>> releases. Node.js is really inspiring in this area, with new minor
>> point releases coming out every week or so (ooh, and 0.4.0 just got
>> released 6 hours ago!). I know the process for an Apache project has
>> more overhead, we don't have a BDFL, and the older community may not
>> appreciate a release cycle that's quite so frantic (interpret that as
>> you like), but there's still something to be learned from the rapid
>> development and enthusiastic community around Node.
>
>
> Yup, I totally agree with node showing amazing momentum. But they do
> have the luxury of being able to break backwards compatibility with
> any release, really, and we don't have that :) — I think the 1.0.2 time
> frame was an outlier and that we are in pretty good shape to push maintenance
> releases quickly, if needed. — Now we only need to demonstrate that :)
Ryan's been a bit more careful about backwards compatibility lately
with the move to stable even and unstable odd branch releases.
Backwards compatibility is a concern for any project as it matures.
So, yeah, more agreement -- let's keep that concern in mind as we
quickly push releases. :)
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>>
>>> B.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
On 8 Feb 2011, at 16:14, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> Still, the problem I have is that it seems like there is a tendency to
> make releases large; it seems like there's little control against devs
> wanting to add their "one more thing". Particularly for bugfix
> releases; from 1.0.1 it took almost 6 months for 1.0.2 to get
> released. In between, there were a little under 100 revisions on the
> 1.0.x branch, presumably most of those fixing bugs users could
> actually run into. It seems valuable to me if the community could have
> gotten some of these fixes sooner.
I need someone else to weigh in on this, but I believe the reason was
because of a few critical bugs that were being worked on. And not, as you
suggest, because we were suffering from a Just One More Thing problem. I'd
really need Jan or Chris to comment though as I use them as a conduit for
judging this stuff.
>>>
>
>
