On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Jonathan Stone wrote:

> 
> 
> "Michael C. Richardson" <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> writes:
> 
> >  Yes! Please. Let's do this.
> >
> >  I would further like to see a release date for 1.3.1 *NOW*, as well
> >as a "goals for 1.4" now as well. Maybe a 1.3.2 date.

I think "goals for 1.4/2.0" would be nice, and give everyone a feel for
what's up.

> >  I would propose that 1.3.1 get frozen February 1st, and released two
> >weeks later.

I agree that 2 weeks is too short. Also, I thought I heard that another
release (either 1.3.1 or 1.4) was tentetivly planned for May.

> There is no way to even build and ship out and test ALPHA releases of
> a 1.3.1 release in a two-week timeframe.
> 
> What you'd get would be something like the 1.2.1 release, where
> someone arbitrarily and heavy-handeldy froze and announced a `release'
> without consulting the portmasters, without getting fixes in, and
> without even ensuring that the fixes that portmasters and developers
> had requested for 1.2 *BEFORE* the 1.2 freeze had all got into 1.2.1.
> (for various reasons, I think some of them didn't make it.)
> 
> Pleas count the weeks between the end of the 1.3 release cycle and
> your date. Add at least one week for building final 1.3 sets, and
> subtract one week for building 1.3.1 sets.  Count the remaining
> weeks. Then subtract out Xmas/thanksgiving/whatever vacations.  And
> recuperation time after the 1.3 release cycle.
> 
> IMHO, a worthwhile 1.3.1 release in mid-Feburary just isn't realistic,
> unless all you expect is a handful of fixes for known bugs.  Which may
> not be the same fixes as in -current by then.  Personally, I don't see
> how even that little can possibly be adequately tested in your
> two-week timeframe.

I agree. But couldn't we start 1.3.1 the day that 1.3 gets frozen? Then,
as people fix bugs, we immediatly (or after a bit of testing) update the
1.3.1 tree? That way, there's less of a rush about the whole thing.

Take care,

Bill