Re: 3.5 release timing (was Re: Outstanding 3.4 bugs?)

Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:

> So, unless there are major objections, we will go with the 1-month 
> bugfix plan for 3.5.
I'll just raise again my objections to the idea that it is possible to
do any sensible beta in only a couple of weeks and any plausible gamma
ditto. If anyone tries to incorporate any new work whatsoever it will
completely blow the faintest possibility of success.

tim
-- 
Tim Rowledge, [email protected], http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
"Both.." said Pooh, as the guillotine came down
From [email protected] Mon Mar 10 06:44:35 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 11995 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 06:44:34 -0000
Received: from mailhost1-sfldmi.sfldmi.ameritech.net (HELO
	mailhost.det2.ameritech.net) (206.141.193.105)
	by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 06:44:34 -0000
Received: from riskmetrics.com ([66.72.186.201])
	by mailhost.det2.ameritech.net
	(InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP
	<20030310064427.CRGK8853.mailhost.det2.ameritech.net@riskmetrics.com>
	for <[email protected]>;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:44:27 -0500
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:44:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]3.5 release timing (was Re: Outstanding 3.4
	bugs?)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551)
From: Doug Way <[email protected]>
To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551)
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:44:35 -0000


On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 06:38 PM, Tim Rowledge wrote:

> Doug Way <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So, unless there are major objections, we will go with the 1-month
>> bugfix plan for 3.5.
> I'll just raise again my objections to the idea that it is possible to
> do any sensible beta in only a couple of weeks and any plausible gamma
> ditto. If anyone tries to incorporate any new work whatsoever it will
> completely blow the faintest possibility of success.

Well, to be honest I am still somewhat on the fence about this.  (as 
far as a 1-month bugfix release being *really* necessary)

But there are some advantages to doing this and I think it can be 
workable.  We would need to put some limits on the number and kind of 
bugfixes that are accepted... perhaps no more than a dozen or so of the 
most important fixes, and they must all be small in size.  Of course 
this doesn't guarantee anything, but allowing more & larger fixes will 
increase the risk.

A 3-week beta+gamma is somewhat short, but not ridiculously so for a 
Squeak release. ;-)  I believe the Squeak releases prior to 2.8 had 
(unofficial) beta stages which were typically about this long.  Which 
is not to say that that was good software-release practice either, but 
at least in this case there will be less risk than in the typical 
release in which hundreds of changes (some large) go in.

Arguments against a 1-month bugfix release are basically that while we 
do have two much-discussed "serious" bugs in 3.4 (the project-saving 
bug & the class compilation bug), the former still doesn't have a 
reliable fix yet, and the latter is arguably not particularly critical. 
  The rest of the bugs being fixed recently seem to be the 
garden-variety bugs present in every Squeak release.  Also, I don't see 
any reason to postpone proceeding with removing packages from the 
image.  And IMHO bug-fixing could move at a more unrestrained pace 
during a normal release as opposed to a shortened release.

Anyway, we can further discuss arguments for/against the 1-month plan, 
and I could probably be convinced either way, but I'd still like to 
announce some sort of 3.5 release plan within the next couple of days 
on squeak-dev (as mentioned in my last message).

- Doug Way