[Squeakfoundation]Re: Outstanding 3.4 bugs?
danielv at netvision.net.il
Mon Mar 3 02:27:39 CET 2003
Simon, the reason I very much am waiting to hear Doug on this topic, and
speaking about 1 month releases should be very tentative, is that none
of us has Actually Done It. Doug might know how much the price of a
release is, and how much it might be reduced, and whether he has time
for it/someone else can do it in reasonable time, and those'll be the
prime considerations in deterimining how often it will happen.
Even doing only a short first release (without setting a fixed rythm
yet), as I propose, depends on these parameters.
Simon Michael <simon at joyful.com> wrote:
> Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> writes:
> > I find it just about impossible to imagine getting stuff done that
> > quickly given the geographic and chronologic spread of people involved.
> > It'll take more than two weeks before any decent number of people heve
> > even downloaded 3.4, let alone done anything much to find and fix any
> > bugs.
> I think it's hard to imagine because we're all used to a different
> process. However, with a steady monthly rhythm and known dates we would
> all soon adjust. Eg when the world knows that "3.x comes out on the 1st"
> it will get downloaded a lot quicker. If bugs or major enhancements aren't
> ready in time for the release, fine, they show up next month (or the month
> after or..).
> NB in the worst case, release time rolls around and noone's had time to do
> anything this month, we'd be just re-releasing (we'd probably skip that
> one). That's fine. The larger process is far more important.
> Of course we can debate the optimal duration of an "iteration" - one
> month, two months, three.. personally I feel one month works here. A
> faster cycle allows us to learn and improve the process more quickly.
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation