A process proposal for 3.10
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Oct 18 04:59:06 UTC 2006
Giovanni Corriga wrote:
>> And how long have we been waiting on 3.9? I'd much rather see a timely
>> release every 6 months that includes what's already been done, than wait
>> forever for a release that has a list of "want to have's".
> But on the other hand "what's already been done" may be more than what
> it would be possible to integrate in a six months cycle. And that would
> force use to make a release plan.
I don't really buy that. Anything that takes longer than a month to
integrate is probably not "done" in any reasonable interpretation of the
word. There may be things which take time to update but this could be
handled by simply agreeing that for one or two versions there will be no
significant changes in particular areas of interest. However, if you
look at the release schedule that I posted you'd have two months (the
discussion phase) to figure out whether you can integrate your code
within two months (the alpha phase). I think that is *plenty* of time
for both, catching up with the latest changes as well as actually
From my point of view the two months alpha phase is merely an
adjustment for the volunteering effort - otherwise I would have said
that within a week all of the changes should be posted. And that is
already adjusted for people in different time zones ;-) Seriously, when
I say "integrate it" what I mean is "load the latest version from your
repository and expect it to work". Otherwise I wouldn't consider your
stuff "done" and then the beta phase is mostly about fixing the bugs
that happened because you were integrating stuff from different sources.
This might explain a little better what I mean by saying "only stuff
that is done already" and why the phases have the length that I proposed.
More information about the Squeak-dev