[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] New stable version?

From: Philippe Michel
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] New stable version?
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:25:10 +0100 (CET)
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:

Jonathan Steel <address@hidden> writes:

Is there any plan to release a "stable" version more frequently? I
maintain the package for Arch Linux. I'm just using the snapshots but
ideally I would use a version that doesn't change almost every day, and
that is relatively up to date.  I would like to then move it into the
official repos.

I'm in a similar situation with Debian and raised the same issue a while
back, and at the time the general feeling was that the developers didn't
have the resources to support an actual release and didn't want to commit
to one.  But it's been a few years, so maybe it's time to reconsider?

I'm not sure that much in the way of committment to ongoing maintenance is
required.  It would just be rather convenient for those of us packaging
for other environments if someone would pick a version that doesn't seem
to have any unusual problems and seems to compile and stick a regular
version number on it (a 1.0 or 1.1 or so forth).

I don't know if this is how it is seen in software engineering, but for me releases imply some kind of roadmap ("We'll implement this and this and that and call it 1.0"). There is no such thing for gnubg.

On the other hand, I agree that daily snapshots, many of them identical, are inadequate. There is no need to make one if nothing was committed or even if the ChangeLog file wasn't updated. Someone interested in changes not worthy to be mentionned there can always pull the source from CVS.

Maybe there could be some kind of long-lived snapshots, quarterly for instance. Packagers could use these if they estimate there is useful progress since the previous one.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]