From: Cyrus H. <ch...@bo...> - 2008-01-10 16:15:50
|
I tend to agree with Michael's numbering comments and I don't like the idea that 1.1.0 is different from 1.1. What's next? 1.1.0.0? Also, I think the monthly release thing is a useful construct to have stable-ish versions on a consistent basis. What I would like to see, however, is more 2-digit (well, 2-part-number anyway) releases. The 1.0 release generated a lot of buzz and there's been a lot of good work since then. IMO, it makes perfect sense to plan for a 1.1 release based on things that are already in the tree with the notion that this release would get a bit more testing than usual and, importantly, a fresh set of binary builds for all platforms we care about (and maybe some we don't). But I don't think we need to change the whole way we do releases to accomplish this. Cyrus On Jan 10, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Michael Weber wrote: > [erroneously sent as PM only] > > On Jan 9, 2008, at 21:03 , Nikodemus Siivola wrote: > >> I like our monthly release policy, but I think we're kidding >> ourselves >> if we pretend they are tested even remotely solidly. More then a >> random >> revision mid-month, sure, but I don't think as many users as we hope >> put SBCL put through its paces during the freeze period -- and we >> don't >> have a solid list of things to shake at it ourselves either before >> we call >> it good. > > It would be the first time (that I know of) that shifting around > release cycles or version naming will change that. If you want > better tested releases, you can't rely on random users alone. > >> Monthly release cycle is also extremely rapid (I think) for people >> for whom >> it means updating applications to when there are incompatible >> changes, and >> even if there is nothing to fix, just testing a new SBCL for use >> with their >> applications every month is probably a bit much a sizable >> percentage of our >> users (users, please comment on this!) > > Maybe a monthly release cycle is rapid, but I like the regular > releases. I am free to (and I do) ignore releases and test only > every other, or pick those which have interesting improvements to > me. At least new features get pushed out regularly. Every two > months would be good as well, I guess. But opting for longer release > cycles means that more new features are cramped into a release, and > it might become harder to isolate interactions between them. Think > "I want feature X, but feature Y is currently broken": if X and Y are > in the same release, I have to resort to CVS? > >> * Freeze 1.1.beta.1. Announce it. > > Disclaimer: I believe that version numbers are mostly for machines, > to be able to sort releases, have automatic update procedures, etc.. > For me as a user, they are mostly opaque tags. I will perhaps > remember that "sbcl-0.8.16 was stable, and useful for ancient > kernels", or "I am running foo-3456alpha2 without problems", but > that's about it. They have no other meaning. "1.0" means nothing > more to me than "0.9.42" in terms of bug-freeness or stability (case > in point: linux kernels with low patchlevels numbers, OS X 10.5.0, > etc.). On the other hand, a developer might want to be able to spot > easily that 1.3.42 is some random CVS release. > > How do you sort "1.1.beta.1" vs. "1.1.0"? This will inflict pain on > packagers. You might say that you don't care (fair enough), or that > they should not package "1.1.beta.1" (it will happen anyway), but > this is quite avoidable. > > If you want to go ahead with your proposal, at least choose some > machine-friendly scheme, like even minor numbers (with versions like: > major.minor.patchlevel) for public releases vs. odd minor numbers for > "beta releases". Or rather, odd minor versions for CVS commits. > E.g., "1.1.42" means "42nd commit in preparation for 1.2.0". Then > "1.2.0" is released, CVS becomes "1.3.0", ..., "1.3.10", etc.. Then > "1.4.0" is released. > > > Michael > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. > It's the best place to buy or sell services for > just about anything Open Source. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace > _______________________________________________ > Sbcl-devel mailing list > Sbc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel |