Subject: Re: Release cycles (Was: Re: RealAudio)
To: Colin Wood <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: The Grey Wolf <email@example.com>
Date: 11/03/1997 06:39:22
"Colin Wood" sez:
* The Grey Wolf wrote:
* > This may sound kind of wacky, but how about the concept that between
* > releases M.m and M.(m+1), the "interim releases", i.e. M.m.X, the X
* > doesn't have to be all inclusive or sequential.
[some deleted for brevity]
* > Whadaya think...?
* This sounds like a good idea (especially on ports like mac68k where _so_
* much support is added between releases), until you dig a little deeper and
* realize what a release engineering nightmare you'd be getting into. The
* current method (i.e. all ports do bugfix releases at the same time)
* provides several benefits:
[more deleted for brevity]
* So, I think it's probably better that we stick with the "all or none"
* method that we currently employ. However, we could use more frequent
* major releases and regularly scheduled bugfix releases. Many people have
* discussed this off and on for the past year and many have tried to plan
* for ways to achieve this. Only time will tell how successful their
* efforts are :-)
Well, my comment was based on the notion of having interim releases
to begin with; it was meant to make it more logical were we to do so.
If you blow off that notion, my whole suggestion is completely moot.
Should have included Todd Vierling's original post...
There is nothing so phenomenal as the music of the Grateful Dead. ___
No other music can so instantly bring a smile to one's face as / / \
that of the Dead. The tape goes in, the smile goes on. \_7_/
- Thank you, Jerry! - O_O