Re: Stable releases

[Rob Browning]

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> I think we probably have taken a wrong turn, because I don't think
> the 1.8.x that we are on the verge of producing can be described any
> more as a "stable" series.  Surely the common connotations of
> "stable" are that the API is as unchanging as possible, and that the
> code is only changed in order to fix non-trivial bugs?

I think I'd be in favor of fixing trivial bugs too, as long as the
fixes are extremely unlikely to cause any other trouble, but other
than that I agree.

> Therefore, my feeling now is that we should revert to traditional
> "stable" handling for 1.8.x.  This would mean not merging
> enhancements from HEAD such as my debugging stuff and Ludovic's text
> collation work.  It would also mean that Rob's comments about
> limited testing requirement hold.
>
> As far as releasing exciting new stuff is concerned, I suggest we
> just make unstable 1.9.x releases every now and then.  We should
> flag these very clearly as unstable, and not really worry at all
> about testing them.

You have fairly accurately summarized the way I would prefer to handle
things, but it hasn't been completely clear to me that that's what
everyone else wants.

In general I would prefer to be very conservative with the stable
series, and just plan to create a new stable series as often as
needed.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4