From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-02 11:32:10
Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Apr 2, 2005, at 3:53 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
>>> At Friday 2005-04-01 15:17, you wrote:
>>>> Here's my suggestion for a release schedule. We allow two weeks to
>>>> get all of the new features and bug-fixes we want into CVS, but
>>>> still try to
>>>> keep things sane. Then we fix bugs on the CVS trunk for a week,
>>>> branch and fix bugs for another week, and then release on May 1. So,
>>>> the important dates are: April 15 (two weeks from today):
>>>> feature-freeze on CVS trunk.
>>>> April 22 (three weeks from today): branch for 1.33.0
>>> I'll say this again.... if you branch, branch the development that's
>>> NOT related to 1.33.0
>> I'll agree again. The changes I check in when we are in release mode
>> (have a release branch active) _always_ go to both the trunk and the
>> branch. The branch doesn't help me in any way.
> Fair enough.
Hey, this is a pretty radical idea. None of the projects I've seen
work that way, and it won't be possible to use this approach if we
have to make a 1.33.1. I'm not going to say flat out that it's the
wrong approach, but at least there ought to be a loud announcement
that we're thinking of turning the release procedure on its head.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk