On 03/03/2008, at 10:11 AM, Anjo Krank wrote:
> I wonder how you except this to work?
Perhaps you'd like to direct your question at Mike. [1]
> Not only we(*) have to write the code, but the more nightly
> advances, the higher is the chance that you can't simply apply a
> patch from the trunk to the stable version and still expect it to
> actually do what it does there. Not only the compile could break,
> but also someone needs to fully test it.
I wondered how this would work also... but it /was/ Mike's proposal.
> If it was me doing this, I'd only advance nightly and declare it
> stable whenever I feel like it. Maybe disable features I don't know
> if they work by properties or settings. Having to maintain more
> than one version is just too much hassle.
Which you've already noted previously.
> Sure, having the pick between 3 versions is nice, but seriously, if
> you're daring enough to pick "preview" you might as well pick a
> nightly,
That depends. We've already seen numerous examples of Mike holding
things back even from nightly (e.g., classpath changes) when they
would have a broader impact. This could free him up some more to not
be so cautious and as such get a broader testing base for those who
are willing.
Again, Mike could perhaps explain his thinking on these things.
> and if you find a show-stopping bug, report it. Last I looked the
> response times to that where like 15 mins.
>
> You (**) don't seem to realize that this time will come out from
> *somewhere* and it most likely be our actual jobs, new Ajax
> features or new WOLips features.
If providing 'ideas' to think on (whether perceived by some as pros
or cons) should Mike choose to go with what's previously been
suggested by /him/ somehow shows some lack of understanding on my
part in your eyes, so be it.
I'm not asking for this to be done... but should it happen, the ideas
I provided could be one of the spin-off benefits.
Perhaps at this point it would be better to ask Mike if he's got a
clearer idea about what he proposed. But then again, maybe he's
already gone ahead and done it as he's not one to sit around.
> Am 02.03.2008 um 04:24 schrieb Lachlan Deck:
>
>> 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
[1] This was /his/ proposal, which you even noted -- though you still seem to think it's somehow an idea /I/ need to explain and that somehow it shows some lack of understanding on my part about the facts of life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Mar 02 2008 - 20:52:06 EST