15 Nov
2010
15 Nov
'10
11:37 a.m.
On Nov 15, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 11/15/2010 11:06 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
BTW this is not true. It's not what was voted. Also please remember that in what we
voted, stability about bugs is achieved through RCs not through the number of minor
releases.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
No, it means that the strategy does allow for one or more extra releases
if the cycle is not stable enough. On 11/15/2010 09:35 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Does it mean you don't agree with the voted Release Cycle strategy since it's
time-based an not "quality"-based? Hi devs,
Now that we've agreed to have major release cycles we need to define what we do for
the current cycle
(see
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HRelease…).
I'm proposing here to make XE 2.7 the last minor release of the 2.x cycle.
Here's my +1
0. I can't decide before I know what the quality is going to be. Let's say that I'm +1 for *trying* to
make 2.7 the last release, but until we release it, we can't know if
we'll find ten major bugs that we can't fix in the allocated one month
period. One such example is the fact that the new recent activity
implementation doesn't work in virtual wikis. Do you prefer to release a
broken 2.7 and leave it like that?
> Also if by "quality" you mean bugs then 2.7 will not be the last bug fix
release of the 2.x cycle; it would be the last minor release only.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent