Build Master: Scheduling

luka8088 luka8088 at owave.net
Fri Nov 15 01:16:08 PST 2013


On 14.11.2013. 10:55, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-11-14 09:39, luka8088 wrote:
> 
>> Just a wild thought...
>>
>> Maybe we can have monthly release and still keep it stable. Imagine this
>> kind of release schedule:
>>
>> Month #  11          12          1           2           3
>>
>>           2.064       2.065       2.066       2.067       2.068
>>           2.065rc2    2.066rc2    2.067rc2    2.068rc2    2.069rc2
>>           2.066rc1    2.067rc1    2.068rc1    2.069rc1    2.070rc1
>>           2.067b2     2.068b2     2.069b2     2.070b2     2.071b2
>>           2.068b1     2.069b1     2.070b1     2.071b1     2.072b1
>>           2.069alpha  2.070alpha  2.071alpha  2.072alpha  2.073alpha
>>
>> Where new features are only added to alpha release. And bug fixes are
>> added to all releases.
>>
>> This way new bug fixes and new features would be released every month
>> but there would be a 5 month delay between the time that feature A is
>> added to the alpha release and the time feature A is propagated to the
>> stable release. But during this period feature A would be propagated
>> through releases and there would be plenty of opportunity to test it and
>> clear it of bugs. I am not a fan of such delay but I don't see any other
>> way new features could be added without higher risk of bugs.
>>
>> Also vote up for daily snapshots.
> 
> Are you saying we should have six releases going on at the same time?
> 

Yes. For example, if you have version 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3. And you find and
fix a bug in 0.3 but you still wish to support backport for 0.2 and 0.1
that you indeed need to make 3 releases. 0.1.1, 0.2.1 and 0.3.1.

But then again having LTS that others have mentioned seems better. So
that only each nth release has 2.x.1, 2.x.2, 2.x.3.

>From my perspective, not separating releases with improvements + bug
fixes from releases with only bug fixes is an issue. Because every new
improvement implies risk of new bugs and some users just want to have
one version that is as stable as possible.

What do you all think about http://semver.org/ ?
We use this king of versioning notation at work and it turns out to be
very good.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list