[crossfire] [Crossfire-cvs] SF.net SVN: crossfire: [5665] maps/tags/1.10/

[Mark Wedel]

Nicolas Weeger wrote:

>>   IMO, release of crossfire should be done more often (quarterly perhaps)? 
>> Gets the code out there a little faster, but it also means that if
>> something misses a release, it doesn't have to wait as long for the next
>> release.
> 
> Maybe even more often?
> That reminds me of a discussion about release numbers and such ^_-

  Yes - I just looked at that doc - it doesn't mention anything about how often 
releases should be made.

  For the stable releases, it is a tricky question.  In theory, not a lot should 
be changing - doing monthly releases may not be bad, but may also mean that the 
only thing that has changed is a couple bugfixes, and so the question then 
becomes if it is worth the effort to make a release for that.

  Or maybe the release logic gets changed some - make quarterly minor releases 
(1.10, 1.11, 1.12, etc).  But if there is a critical bug that people are likely 
to hit, make a micro release right after that change (1.10.1, 1.10.2, etc).  The 
micro release only needs to contain the affected area (server, client, etc), so 
is easier than doing a full minor release.

  this gets critical bug changes out there in a timely fashion.  Because even if 
advanced notice is given, there is the possibility that the day after a release 
is made, some critical bug is found.

  This actually may be more likely, as people are likely to download the new 
release and try it out, so if the bug was introduced since the last release, 
this may be the first time it gets widespread use.

  My thoughts for doing releases on a more regular schedule is that there is 
then implied deadlines for fixes.  Eg, a release will be made at start of march, 
june, september, december, so make sure any fixes get in by then.

  At some level, the better answer is that developers should consider that a new 
release could be made any time, so bugfixes, etc, should always go in promptly. 
  But I know that is not realistic, and don't really follow it myself.


>>   In any case, sorry for not giving notice, but just needed to get a
>> release out while I had the time to do it.
> 
> Then could I suggest we, people developing for Crossfire, and not only you 
> alone, try to coordinate to make releases?
> I'm sure we'd be 3 or 4 people willing to take a share of the release 
> process - be it tagging, making archives, whatever.
> Given like one week notice (maybe 2 to account for holidays), it'd be pretty 
> fast to do what is needed.
> We could even make releases while you're not available, possibly ^_-

  That is one reason I'm documenting the process - so others could do releases.

  This is also one reason that regularly scheduled releases may make sense - 
people will know to try to set aside time/clean up any open bugs.

  It also means that if something misses a release, and isn't critical, it is 
known when the next release is, and thus when that feature/bug fix would be put 
in.  I think one problem/issue right now is that there is no determined release 
cycle, so there is real desire to have the advanced notice - if you don't get 
something in for this release, who knows when the next release might be out. 
Case in point is that is has been 8 months or so since the 1.9.1 release.

> 
> As for free time, I'm sure most people on this list are in the same case, so 
> we (I at least) do understand your time issue :)
> But please remember that there are other people who'll need to eg make Windows 
> 1.10 release to follow the Linux one, and they also have the same time 
> issues - thus my call for increased coordination ^_-

  Consider the release of 1.10 a one-off, and that in future, better 
coordination, both in scheduling, and hopefully in people, would be done.

  I could be wrong, but I think right now, no one else other than me is 
comfortable making the official releases.  Hopefully, the documentation will 
help that, and the best way to write that is to write it as I do it.

  I also cam to the conclusion that I could to a release right now, which would 
probably miss some bug fixes, etc (which is always the case), or probably not 
have time to do another one for 2 months (between work schedule and vacation). 
2 months from now would almost be time for the next release (presuming quarterly 
scheduled), so I figured that putting a release out now would be better than 
waiting.

  I forgot about the windows releases, and the time you'd need to make those. 
OTOH, I don't know if there is really a requirement that those show up the next 
day after the official release.