Re: GOP-PROP 4: lessons from 2.14

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Graham Percival
<address@hidden> wrote:
> http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_4.html
>
> ** Proposal summary
>
> What went well, what went badly? This is a discussion only; it
> will be summarized, and we will refer back to it in future policy
> decisions, but no new policies will be decided in this round.
>
> We’ll have (at least) two sections: one for facts that anybody
> considers relevant, and one for thoughts and commentary.
>

Overall, I think this cycle took too long.

We should strive to have policies that make each development release
be a worthy stable candidate. That means -for example- being serious
about

* changes passing through the regtest
* bugfixes and features always having a test to check against

We should examine other reasons for the delay of the 1st candidate
appearing, and the delay between the 1st and last release candidate,
and figure out if there is a way to prevent them from causing large
delays again.

On a tangent: at Google I am working on a side-project that
essentially is distcc on steroids; it will allow any compilation
process (not just C/C++) to be distributed on a set of similar Linux
machines (they must run the same OS and architecture), and I am going
to open-source it.

It could speed up GUB and regtest checking for those that have access
to several machines.

Anybody interested?

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen