Create new mailing list wine-isv?

[Alexandre Julliard]

Tony Lambregts <tony.lambregts at gmail.com> writes:

> Perhaps it's partly a matter of  perception then.
>
> If  I understand you 0.9 was a major release then, and 0.9.1 and
> company are minor releases, with the next major release being 1.0. So
> I anticipate that we will have a major freeze before 1.0 just like we
> had before 0.9?

Definitely.

The 0.9.x releases should be viewed as snapshots of the current
tree. They should be more stable than the alpha snapshots but that's
really because I'm being more reluctant to commit big changes as we
move forward. And this will be more and more the case until we get to
1.0; it's a gradual freezing process, the temperature is going down a
few degrees with every snapshot...

> If we could count on a release every two weeks that would be ideal.

I'm planning to stick to the two weeks schedule, yes. Maybe weekly
releases would be even better, but IMO that would require more
automation of the release process so that the packages are available
faster.

> That way people like me who use CVS ( or GIT) could help prevent
> regressions even getting into the minor releases, which in turn would
> encourage more people to use the minor releases. I would prefer to see
> that releases were done on a Tuesday, myself, since I have more free
> time to track down regressions on a weekend and with some luck get
> them fixed on Monday. IMO doing this would be very beneficial to
> application maintainers without really changing very much what you are
> currently doing.

Well, there are usually a bunch of changes on Monday since they
accumulate during the weekend, so I prefer to make releases on
Wednesday or Thursday to leave some time for things to settle down.

> One more thing. At the rate we are using up minor numbers we will be
> looking at at 1.0 being released sometime in March. This seems not to
> bad to me since having a major release twice a year seems pretty
> reasonable. Are we planning on doing release candidates for 1.0? Or
> are we just freezing the main branch. It seems to me that with GIT
> having release candidates is a lot easier then it would be with CVS.

There's no rule that says minor numbers have to be one digit ;-)
I think it's likely to be 12 rather than 6 months between major
releases, but we'll see...

And yes, the 1.0 release will be off the main branch, that's where
everybody is working so that's where 1.0 will be. After 1.0 there
could of course be a 1.0.x stable branch in parallel with the
development branch.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org