prep for 1.0.1

Hal Murray hmurray at
Wed Feb 21 21:41:03 UTC 2018

rlaager at said:
> If you're going to move to time-based, you might consider quarterly
> releases?

I'd be happy with quarterly releases.

The next question is how seriously do we take the release date?  I think 
there are two approaches.  The first is to try hard to release as scheduled.  
That means we have to be conservative and leave plenty of time for testing 
and the associated cleanups.  The other approach is to leave less time for 
testing but slip the release if/when we find interesting problems.

> Longer release cycles allow developers and users of git to test some changes
> longer, but that's only helpful if you have a freeze.

I'm assuming there will be a freeze.  Or at least a cooling off period where 
the changes are small and reviewed carefully, maybe smaller and more 
carefully reviewed and tested as we get closer to the release.


There might be a need for more time between releases if we ever make a big 
change.  I don't have any good examples right now.

These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

More information about the devel mailing list