Re: [Audacity-devel] 1.3.6 schedule

[Gale A. <ga...@au...>]

| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
| Fri, 09 May 2008 11:42:20 -0700
| Subject: [Audacity-devel] 1.3.6 schedule
> > Re LRN's comment, am I still right thinking the "kick tyres" betas 
> > during GSoC coding are essentially internal, i.e. not up on the 
> > main website? That was my inference.
> >   
> We haven't discussed that explicitly here, but probably so. I don't see 
> posting them as a problem, but we should probably keep 1.3.5 up, even 
> after 1.3.6, because 1.3.6 will be substantial different, therefore less 
> tested than the latest few 1.3.x versions. We can designate 1.3.5 as 
> "semi-stable"?...

Just my 2 cents. 

A disadvantage of suggesting greater stability of 1.3.5 vs. 1.3.6 
(either by giving different nomenclature or keeping 1.3.5 and 1.3.6
prominently alongside each other as "alternatives") may be that 
we get less feedback about 1.3.6, which we really do need. Maybe
we could limit ourselves to 1.3.5 being an "optional download" 
on each platform's download page? 

If we suspect the GSoC builds will be less stable than 
"1.3.6 from end of May" (likely?), then I doubt we should post 
those on the download pages of the main site. We could do so
perhaps on the developers pages of the main site and Wiki? 

Why not go with LRN's idea of "alpha", which suggests potential lesser
stability compared to beta? If we want to name 1.3.6 differently to 
1.3.5 then "end of May" is 1.3.6 alpha1 and GSoc builds 1.3.6 
alpha2....n. If "end of May" is called 1.3.6 Beta then should the 
GSoC builds be 1.3.7alpha1....n?


Gale