On Wed, 27 May 2015 17:15:39 -0400 Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: > On 5/27/2015 4:16 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > I second that sentiment. But it strikes me that we're doing this > > because our release frequency is completely inadapted. If we had > > feature releases, say, every 6 or 9 months, the problem wouldn't really > > exist in the first place. > > How about a feature release once a year, on a schedule we choose as best > for us. For instance, aim for end of May, with a bugfix release and > alpha of the next version mid to late Sept after summer vacations. > Encourage linux distributions to include the new version in their fall > and spring releases. > > Features that miss a beta1 deadline would then be available to early > adopters 4 months later. In general, I think alpha releases have > usually been about as good as bugfix releases. I don't believe alpha releases are attractive for most users. People don't want to risk losing time over bugs that may be caused by regressions in Python. Regardless of their *actual* stability or quality, releases labelled "alpha" are perceived as high-risk. Regards Antoine.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4