[Python-Dev] 2.6.1 and 3.0

Barry Warsaw barry at python.org
Wed Nov 19 16:11:32 CET 2008

Hash: SHA1

On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:

> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Actually, I've wanted to do timed releases, though I think monthly  
>> is unrealistic.  Maybe every two months is about the right time  
>> frame.  Timed releases are nice because everybody then knows when a  
>> patch is due, from developers to downstream consumers.
> From my point of view bi-monthly release are too much. For a ?.?.1
> release two months are fine because several issues are found by 3rd
> party authors. But after that a release every quarter is sufficient.
> * .1 release two months after the .0 release
> * .2, .3, .4 and .5 release every quarter
> * about here the next minor release gets out
> * .6 and further releases after 6 months when necessary

Timed releases have a lot of advantages, and I would like to see if we  
can adopt them and realize these benefits.  What I like most about  
them is that everyone knows what's happening when and can coordinate  
efforts.  Developers will know automatically (no reminders or alarms)  
when the next release is happening, so they can schedule what they  
want to do more easily.  Release experts can block out the appropriate  
time on their schedules and plan more efficiently.  Downstream  
consumers have a better idea of when updates are available and can  
lobby for certain critical bugs to be fixed in a timely and  
predictable manner.

I think 6 months is too long between releases -- it might as well not  
be timed.  It sounds like the Windows side is a bit of a pain, and  
since we're all busy, one month is probably too soon.  That's why I  
proposed bi-monthly.

I really want our releases to be predictable.  I don't think we have  
to worry about nothing getting committed to the trees in 2 months time.

- -Barry

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list