geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stefan Arentz" <stefan.are...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Other items to clarify how releases are managed
Date Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:27:32 GMT
On 6/11/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:

...

> To be honest, my big concern over feature / bug debates is that we seem to be on a multi-month
> release cycle.  At that rate and pace it will be difficult to fix bugs / performance
issues without
> making users wait a very long time in between stable drops.  Do others have suggestions
on how to
> handle this?

Hi Matt,

If I had a choice then I would like to see more frequent minor
releases. With only bug fixes and performance improvements. While
keeping the APIs/schemas/tools stable and compatible.

JBoss is a good example of how it should not work. They had more than
300 issues open between 4.0.4 and 4.0.5. That is crazy and it will
take them months to do releases like that. My choices are then to wait
for that release or stay current with JBoss-HEAD and use daily
development releases. Which are unstable.

I think it is fine to have multi-month releases to plan bigger
features and improvements. But for me as a user of the software it is
annoying to wait for a very long time for minor releases. Also many
times those minor fixes are pushed forward because the next big
release is around the corner.

I have of course no idea how the Geronimo team works and what kind of
work is involved to do a release. I can image that apart from
developing it also takes a substantial amount of energy and time to
coordinate the release, run a test kit, etc.

Oh also, take a look at how the Glassfish team is doing releases and
weekly builds. That could also be an interesting model.

 S.

Mime
View raw message