Re: The 1.6.1 release.

[Rob Browning]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:

> good question.
>
> IMO, the more branches there are the more PITA it is to maintain them.
> this suggests that to cut ourselves slack we should delay branching
> until things are *determined* to be stable (as opposed being *declared*
> to be stable).

I have no problem with this.  This is what I'd intended for the next
release.

> to do a good determination means we need to define what are the
> criteria for stability so that we can measure the living tree
> against it.  there is now workbook/build/stability.text (currently
> empty) -- everyone please feel free to suggest items to add to that
> file.

As a practical definition, I'd love to see it move to the point where
being ready for release was more just a matter of making sure all the
release-critical TODO items had been done (which would include
references into the bug tree), and that "make check" would complete
without error on the "primary platforms".  In particular, I'd like to
see items added to "make check" whenever we have important problems
that need fixing -- *before* we fix them.  This wouldn't be
appropriate for all problems, but for many I suspect it would.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD