On 01/03/2008, at 2:04 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
> This is sort of what I'm leaning towards, too. But I don't know if
> people expect "stable" to be "stagnant" :)
Hmm, for me stable equals more reliable rather than stagnant.
But if you are going for three streams (Nightly, Preview, Stable)
rather than two (Nightly, Stable) then by nature Stable will/should
only receive critical bug fixes. Preview, then, will be like beta
releases previewing the next stable release... etc.
Perhaps you'd want to think about locking of new features from
Preview at certain times when aiming at pushing to Stable a new
release so as to iron out any remaining bugs?
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Johan Henselmans wrote:
>
>> Op 1 mrt 2008, om 01:09 heeft Mike Schrag het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> So there are a couple bug fixes I've just committed ... What do
>>> people prefer? Do you want bug fixes to move to stable, or make
>>> no changes to stable until we do the next major release?
>>
>> If it makes stable more stable...
>>
>> Move bugfixes to stable. Hardly tested experimental stuff into
>> nightly.
with regards,
--Lachlan Deck
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Mar 01 2008 - 22:26:47 EST