Re: [Nano-devel] considering what is stable

[Benno Schulenberg]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 19:12, Chris Allegretta wrote:
> but in my professional life there has definitely been a move, as Benno
> points out, to having release live very close to trunk all the time.

That is one thing.  The other thing is: they release at a quick pace.
They don't wait three or four months before rolling another tarball.

> We could as a compromise do something like: move the 'stability
> indicator' in x.y.z from the y value to the z, and just say every
> other release (i.e. the 'evens' excepting .0 of course) we'll focus on
> bugs from user reports.

Who's "we"?  Who's fixing the bugs?  :)

I mean: that's all I'm doing, fixing bugs from user reports.
(Most reports coming from myself, by the way.)  There is no
development going on.  Those little, tiny extra features that
I've added, they can hardly be called development.  Or do you,
Chris, have big things waiting, stacked up around the corner?

So, I don't see any need to destine certain versions as being
stabler than others.  In my opinion HEAD is always stablest:
it has the most bugs fixed.  And it was nice to see the 9999
confirmation from Gentoo.

Benno

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Same, same, but different...