| 1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> This kind of thing will be less of a problem if we shorten the period of the release cycle. If we shorted it to 2 months or so, then it won't matter much when something gets bumped to the next cycle. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>>Also this isn't exactly news to you all as I sent my intentions already |
| 8 |
>>>a while ago, and last I asked you all agreed with them, so is there any |
| 9 |
>>>reason to rush this now? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Like I've said above, I'm annoyed by the length of this release cycle. The gap between 2.0.x and 2.1 has grown so large that a 2.0.55 release seems (in my mind) like beating a dead horse. The way I see it, a shorter release cycle is needed so that bug fixes are released in _stable_ versions sooner. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Zac |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
See my problem is that some of the features proposed aren't "two month" |
| 17 |
testing features. Particularly when you rewrite decent portions of the |
| 18 |
application you need longer than two months to get decent testing |
| 19 |
coverage. Sure Unit Tests are helpful for that too, but they don't |
| 20 |
cover all cases and really the best testing platform is to let the |
| 21 |
people who play with portage do the testing and get some real results |
| 22 |
prior to release. The great thing about 2.1 is that *everyone* uses it. |
| 23 |
Of course they use it because it's better, which may not necessary be |
| 24 |
the case for future versions. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
We have a new cache format, confcache, parallel fetch, etc... The bonus |
| 27 |
is these features are already mature and relatively old ( a year + as of |
| 28 |
now ). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-Alec |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives