Also, you probably need some kind of announcement to prompt testing -- there's nothing prompting people to check the nightly build (or even to know when anything substantial has been added to it). When a new .1 release (e.g., 1.91.1) is announced (usually with a list of new features), that prompts people to check it out. Maybe instead of starting with .1, start with a release candidate (e.g., 1.92.0rc or something), then spend a few days debugging before releasing a more stable .1 (so what we currently call .1 would become the RC, and what currently ends up being .3 or .4 would be .1). Essentially the same behavior as now, just slightly different labeling. That's not to say we couldn't use other improvements to the process (e.g., more systematic testing), but this might be a simple change. Anthony
On Wednesday, December 22, 2010 2:31:45 PM UTC-5, stu...@brankovukelic.com wrote: > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM, mdipierro <mdip...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > The idea was to have stable and nightly-build. The problem is that > > very few people check the nightly build. > > Well, yeah, it's because it's sounds like a nightly TRUNK dump. :) > It's better to make a 'incubation release' or something like that, so > it's obvious that it's a release. And when it's hatched, you can label > it safe-for-production. I don't know if people would use them, though. > They might still go yuck and decide it's just like nightly, with a > fancy name. :D > > > -- > Branko Vukelic > > stu...@brankovukelic.com > http://www.brankovukelic.com/ > >
