Re: GNU CLISP 2.39 (2006-07-16)
- From: "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Jul 2006 11:38:21 -0700
Sam Steingold wrote:
2.39 (2006-07-16)
You know, you guys really should have some kind of pre-release staging
for CLISP. It seems that time a release is put out, people download it
and find silly little problems which are then fixed in CVS.
The result is that the version history of CLISP is littered with
official releases that are subtly broken.
Put out a 2.38.95 or 2.38-pre-1 or something. Then if nothing goes
wrong, you just tweak the version numbers and make it into 2.39.
Otherwise, you can make a pre-2 and so on.
Not everyone sits there going "cvs up" everyday just in case you might
release something.
Or, heck, if candidate tarballs are too much trouble, how about just
doing the branching in CVS and let people know about it:
``We have made a release branch called REL_2_39. Try it, give us
feedback.''
People who care about that release will ``cvs up'' from the branch and
do some testing, having an opportunity to provide feedback. Fixes are
done in the branch, and downmerged to the trunk where new work can
already be going on.
It's the early warning that is more important than how the details are
managed. It can be done without branching by imposing a bugfix-only
phase on the trunk where the candidates are tagged, or whatever.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GNU CLISP 2.39 (2006-07-16)
- From: Sam Steingold
- Re: GNU CLISP 2.39 (2006-07-16)
- References:
- GNU CLISP 2.39 (2006-07-16)
- From: Sam Steingold
- GNU CLISP 2.39 (2006-07-16)
- Prev by Date: Re: GNU CLISP 2.39 (2006-07-16)
- Next by Date: Re: GNU CLISP 2.39 (2006-07-16)
- Previous by thread: Re: GNU CLISP 2.39 (2006-07-16)
- Next by thread: Re: GNU CLISP 2.39 (2006-07-16)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|