[cvsnt] Latest updates

Thu Apr 22 00:02:21 BST 2004

Glen Starrett wrote:
> Tony--I have to agree here, it would be nice to get a version that is 
> branched for stability updates only.  Maybe you should consider 
> adjusting your current branching strategy?  The changes you have 
> proposed for what is now 2.1 seem like they could easily be set off as a 
> 3.0 branch, and these things like renaming could go onto 2.1 until they 
> are working 100%.

Time is a limiting factor here... 2.1.x essentially never gets to release, 
largely because it's a big job and it's difficult to do on a couple of hours a 
day.  I simply don't have the time to maintain 2 branches, so 2.1.x gets the 
leftovers when the others have been sorted out.  There's a lot of stuff that 
hasn't made it into 2.0.x simply because the change was too great to put into 
the main tree - that's where 2.1.x is right now... lots of changes, no chance 
of a release in a reasonable timescale.

The 2.0.x unstable is good for adding features I want in now, and a lot of 
it's incremental and isn't that hard to add in small chunks.  I don't do any 
major archirectural changes in it, just add stuff that seems to be in demand 
(or that I want/need for my own work).

2.0.x stable should be more stable than it is... the wildcard was 2.0.38, 
which I couldn't delay so didn't get the level of testing I would have liked 
(normally its bugs would have been caught before it went officially stable and 
it would't have been an issue).  It still got 3 days solid testing though. 
It's supposed to be the 'safe' snapshot of the 2.0 development, and normally 
it is.

It's really up to people to decide which version has the features they need 
and stick to it... there's no need to upgrade most of the time, unless there's 
a bugfix that is needed.

The update schedule really isn't that fast.  If you ignore 2.0.38 -> 2.0.41 
(which is needed as .38 isn't up to standard).  There was over a month between 
2.0.26 and 2.0.34, and 2 months between 2.0.14 and 2.0.24.

Tony