On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> Why will it be the last stable release for a long time?
> 1.1.6 has taken far too long to get out the door and nearly everyone has
> agreed we need to shorten our cycle again and get back to about 2-3 months
> between releases (if not shorter).
>
> Remember, Lars, posted the CVS HOWTO so we could all learn how we really
> should be developing LyX: Major chunks in branches and merged once
> stabilised. The HOWTO also showed how to keep branches synced up with the
> trunk so your work is based on the current trunk and thereby makes merging
> simpler. CVS trunk should nearly always be stable so we could almost have
> a new release each time there's a commit to the trunk. "Almost" because
> merged in major features are likely to be a tiny bit buggy or misfeatured
> for the first week they are in.
I didn't realise this was the actual plan. At the very least NEW_INSETS
will be on and perfect for the next release though, right ?
>
> Just because we are calling the next release 1.2.0 shouldn't get you
> thinking in the Linux kernel way where major releases must be massively
> different to the previous release (which is half the reason the kernel
> release cycle is so long).
Thankfully Alan Cox seems to be making some changes to the way the kernel
is developed, effectively treating the development series as a big CVS
branch.
john
--
"We didn't have metaphors in our day. We didn't beat about the bush."
- Fred Trueman
