Jonathan Marsden wrote:
One helpful way to encourage such testing would be to tag the current
svn head as (say) 1.6.rc1, and then publish a tarball of that code,
making it available by FTP from your site. Is this something you would
consider doing?
This approach allows packagers to package and then test that release
candidate, and report back on results, more easily than working directly
from SVN, because others may generate tarballs slightly differently from
how the SWORD devel team does, etc.
It would be conventional to do alpha and then beta releases like this
(svn tag, then create and publish a tarball of the tagged snapshot), and
then do an rc1, but if the general consensus is that the SWORD svn tree
is "ready for a release", then going straight to rc1 might be appropriate.
It would help me to test the library if alpha/beta/rc was packaged for
Ubuntu and available in some testing repository. That way I could
automatically install it and test it without any extra work, and both
packagers and library developers could get immediate feedback. Now I
don't have time to do the download/build cycle - if anything goes wrong,
it's too much, and even a successful attempt has a learning curve.
If the library is packaged and tested like this, it requires a
standardized release cycle with certain minimum time for packaging and
testing the alpha/beta/rc.
--Eeli Kaikkonen
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
