On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, John Levon wrote:
> 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 ?
There's a good reason to "release early and often" ;-)
> > 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.
I hope to make some noise at linux.conf.au about development processes and
guii. I might get slapped down but hopefully it'll get people thinking.
AC will be there so it'll be interesting to hear what he has to say.
I'd like to see them try what we're going to be doing.
Allan. (ARRae)
