On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:18:55AM -0500, David Champion wrote: > The catch is that with current mutt, to cut a "release" an quantity of > work needs to be qualified in some way: stable, or beta-worthy, or at > least internally consistent. Otherwise a release is no different from > any other committed changeset. (Maybe that's ideal. It's how Mercurial > does it, for example: every commit to the stable branch is pre-judged > as release-worthy). On Mutt, a "release" is still meaningful because > we still develop and release on HEAD, which means that someone needs > to focus on vetting releases. And that's the rub: again we're down to > limited time. A version number means that someone had a certain minimum > amount of free time all at once.
I think that with a mature product as mutt is, we should always have a stable version, always "be ready to ship". I like the model used by the git project: https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/howto/maintain-git.txt A testsuite would make us be able to track regressions faster and therefore be able to lower the time between releases (don't have to wait for people testing that old features still work...). As I see it mutt is a vital part of many peoples daily worklife and an improved mutt would be able to speed up other work. Maybe there's companies that actually are willing to sponsor mutt-development? For example with donating coding time... -- Med vänliga hälsningar Fredrik Gustafsson tel: 0733-608274 e-post: iv...@iveqy.com
