On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 23:45 -0700, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
Friday, December 16, 2005, 11:26:28 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 19:48 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
The goal is not to prevent regressions between every minor point release, it's to make releases frequently enough that regressions can be found and fixed quickly, so that they don't creep into the next major release. Now, if you think that doesn't work I'm certainly open to doing things differently. What do you suggest?
If I may make a humble suggestion, it would be to time another stable (or semi-stable), regression-proofed release to roughly coincide with the various distributions freezing schedules. Ubuntu, for instance has an upstream version freeze on Jan 19th and a Feature Freeze on Feb 2nd. In my ideal world, we would have a Wine release just before that Jan 19th deadline, go into regression-fix and bughunt mode, and then have a release come out around Feb 2nd that had no regressions relative to 0.9 and the Jan 19th release.
That sounds to aggressive to me. We still a long ways away from major pieces falling into place. Most regressions you see, especially with games caused be major developments in d3d part of Wine. I don't think that will be "fixed" by then.
Add six months, then, to time it with the next release. That sounds reasonable.
Thanks, Scott Ritchie