On 5 December 2011 15:29, Timothy Pearson <kb9vqf@...> wrote:
> On Monday 05 December 2011 18:49:48 Timothy Pearson wrote:
>> >> Why not make a release, 3.5.14, in early January, after the move to
>> >> Git and the rename thing is completed??
>> >> Even if it cures only a small bunch of bugs, it will be good, in many
>> >> respects.
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > I like this idea
>>
>> Doing a release properly requires a little over a month dedicated to
>> release tasks such as beta testing, compiling packages on all
>> distributions, compiling release notes, etc.  Also, building binary
>> packages is not cheap, in terms of both time (of our distribution
>> maintainers) and money (to feed everyone's build computers with
>> electricity).
>>
>> Releasing after the move to GIT would not cure a lot of the more
>> stubborn
>> bugs.  Additionally, due to the renaming of *KDE* strings, the
>> distribution maintainers have some work to do in order to update their
>> packaging files.  I don't want to place that kind of demand on our
>> volunteer staff during the Christmas season, and then turn right around
>> and demand the same thing a couple months later.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> My heart sank when I saw the suggestion!  And why necessarily 6 monthly?
> It
> makes sense for the Ubuntu build, but that is faster than Debian's own
> release cycle.  I personally would rather that Trinity 3.x.x were released
> when it is ready, rather than on time, but buggy.

<snip>

That is what I would like to see as well.  I just wanted to make sure I
wasn't the only one. ;-)

Tim


. Stability is always first and foremost. But if the current version has stability issues that are compromising the users ability to work, shouldn't we be focusing on that as well.

This is where maintainers come in. we have over 50 patches already sitting in Bugzilla, and many other bugs already have workarounds. It's up to them to push these patches out before the next release, if they feel that is their job.

As for Arch Linux, we maintain strictly vanilla upstream sources. What can happen when you have maintainers doing more than just maintaining packages is not good. It can end up with a lot of system specific hacks or even outdated repositories (like ones currently still supporting GNOME2 or vanilla KDE3 branches) which become convoluted messes (ahem).

And once nightly builds become available again, the latest and most unstable, but also the one getting bugfixes, will be there for anyone who needs it.

Calvin Morrison.