Hi Felix

>>> snip snap
> > There are two things which make me wonder:
> >
> > 1) Why should the launchpad/bundle be something more stable
> than the other
> > stuff in the SVN? There's a (stable) release which ca be
> used by users if
> > they do not wish to have the newest stuff which maybe is unstable.
>
> It is not necessairily more stable. It is just an "exact"
> image of what
> we expect to have in the next release.
>
> Stability is not really the differentiator.

What I can't see is why should a patch for a module be accepted and
committed but not released in the next release of Sling?
I'm not talking about new bundles but only existing ones.


>>> snip snap
>
> If users think, that something more recent should be
> considered for the
> release, they may certainly propose. Sometimes it is just omission on
> our part and should be fixed (considering the omission a bug).
>
> In fact, the launchpad/bundles will in general reflect the
> newest state
> of developments.

For me that's realy the point: In which case should launchpad/bundles
NOT reflect the most recent state of development? Sorry to insist
on that point so much, but maybe I just have missed something.

> But to simplify the release procedure, I would like to not
> increase all
> dependencies at once but rather on-demand.

Maybe I created here a missunderstanding: The dependencies shouldn't
increase, they should just reflect to the most recent code. E.g. instead of
pointing to xy 2.0.4 they point to xy 2.0.5-INCUBATOR.

> This also makes it easier for users to identify a state of
> the complete
> application, we deem "stable".

For me the most stable version for a new user is obviously the latest
release. The most recent source code has for me always the smell
of unstable/testing maybe even experimental in some parts.
Why should I use the trunk stuff if it only partly reflects recent
developments, in this case the latest release seems to be more
appropriate.

Again, maybe I'm missing a big point, I see me as a Sling newbie,
so just correct me if I'm wrong.


best regards
mike

Reply via email to