Re: re: release management (was "WeakMessageSends/Events for 3.4")

Hi Craig,

From: "Craig Latta" <[email protected]>
> I recommend against that approach. Remember that "final" releases are,
> currently, what newcomers are most likely to use first. I think each
> final release should be at least as stable as the previous one. We
> should come as close as is practical to "all scheduled features
> implemented, with no known bugs".

You know I get into this dilemma at work too. :)   Of course, at work, going
into beta typically means development freeze in addition to the sensible
code freeze for a particular version.  Talk about boring...jeez.   I
completely agree with what you have said.  Taking the time to do it right is
important and this 3.4final is very externally visible.

What I liked about the way SqC would transition through a release is that
they would define the following alpha version, wheever they put the current
alpha into beta.  I don't know if the Guides want to do this, since it
requires more guidance, and quite frankly I am still happy as can be inside
of 3.2.

Having 3.5alpha may make their lives easier when they say "this changeset
belongs in 3.5".  Why if 3.5alpha already had an update stream, then they
could immediately assign it and be done.

cheers,
rob