On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.har...@zylin.com> wrote: > After some consideration, I've changed my view to that the > release manager should have git access and that the master > branch developers *should* follow the release managers > marching orders and that we follow the cycle Jean-Christophe > outlined... I think perhaps that 2-4 releases / year would > be plenty for OpenOCD though. >
2 release is quite good. 4 release will be wonderful if there are enough changes or bug fixes. I think it is not necessary if there are not enough changes to justify 4 release. 6-release may be too aggressive for a project like OpenOCD due to limit resources (unless more maintainers and volunteers jump in). I am looking forward to seeing the OpenOCD 0.5 release. At least Peter Stuge will have one less reason to argue for his idea that not-release-forever project is still active. :-) http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/Re-Openocd-development-Peter-Stuge-is-now-an-OpenOCD-maintainer-tp4476710p4481873.html Peter Stuge's idea about release and what is an active project. "If none works on code then a project is inactive. Activity = anything happens. Activity != releases happen. You and Xiaofan seem to agree with me that OpenOCD is an active project. As you know, OpenOCD has gone longer than libusb without a release." Of course he has a point but I hope most of the project admins not to follow his ideas about release. Release is not that expensive -- so it should be done once in a while. Release is not too cheap (if project is complex enough or with limited resources) -- so it should be done not that often. -- Xiaofan _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
