On Sunday, 24 April 2011 at 18:55, Per Inge Mathisen wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Christian Ohm <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've wondered if the concept of "stable release" is actually useful for us. > It is useful for users.
Hm, that was supposed to read "stable release branch". We bare can keep 2.3 alive, I don't think we need another branch that needs attention. > We should definitely aim for quicker releases later on. Not really > sure how to do this. I think this is mostly dictated by what we want > to do and how much time people have, anyways. I think the feature branches model is our best bet to achieve that. master won't ever have unfinished stuff delaying a release, and features can be developed in a branch as fast or slow as wanted without delaying a release. > That does sound like an interesting idea. I think the linux distros > would hate it, though. They don't like apps having their own update > mechanisms. But maybe if it was just for "data" (including scripts)? That was mostly aimed at Windows. No idea about Macs, the commercial games on Linux I know (mostly from the Humble Bundles) tend to have their own LD_PRELOADed libs included, and when things fail you need to remove some of them so the system libs are used... So on Linux at least, we already have all the git autoupdate that's needed imo. _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
