2009/12/20 Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus@...>:
> 2009/12/20 Cyrus Harmon <ch-sbcl@...>:
>> Sorry to have missed SBCL10, but was there any discussion of a 1.1 release at the
> None that I was party to. :)
> IIRC we had something like
> "timeboxed releases
> on the whiteboard for the roundtable, but it wasn't really talked about.
> I've on occasion thought (and maybe said out loud too) that we could
> do 1.1, 1.2, etc in a timeboxed manner, eg. every 6 months.
Following up on the discussion of "what platforms are supported" from
SBCL10, I like this idea. For the less often tested platforms, like
Solaris/SPARC, this would give regular goals for testing and fixing
any brokenness. And if there are ports that stay broken past two-digit
release points, that's a clearer indication that they're not being
kept up, compared to just some monthly releases.
That said, I'd think 12 months would be a little more reasonable,
particularly if 1.1, 1.2, etc, are to be preceded by an extended