| Re: [AD] Allegro 4.2.0 RC2 |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On 2005-08-29, Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Practically, I see no difference between beta or RC, if things
> > continue this way.
>
> Is that your way of saying this release process is stupid? :-)
Yes. I see two extremes in version releases. One, you are being
extra careful with everything and try to put only really really
really tested software out for the user to grab. The other, you
know you will always have bugs, so at least let users report them
and fix quickly.
The first has longer times between releases, and I've typically
associated it with big firms infested of red tape. The second,
I've always associated it to smaller developers. But then maybe
Allegro comes in the first class, and there's this "fake commercial
image" of first try for some users, who will be unhappy with a buggy
x.x.0 release and never try it again if they are scared with some
Makefile error.
Hell, even the guys from SDL announced recently a "prerelease" of a
minor increment update. Or recent Linux policy. We are all going to
die under the invisible weight of perfection if things keep this way.
I guess I've been using CVS for too long.
> I think we're very close now though. Can we agree that the next
> release ought to be the last release before 4.2.0, or 4.2.0 itself?
I'm more interested to know any plans about 4.0.x maintenance plans.
There are people concerned it doesn't compile with latest versions
of gcc or some other compiler. And after all, that's what x.x.1
increments are supposed to be for, fix minor issues.