Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: Quick question

From: Bill Moseley <moseley(at)not-real.hank.org>
Date: Thu Apr 11 2002 - 17:22:18 GMT
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Eric Lease Morgan wrote:

> I have a similar question. When might version 2.1 be labeled the 
> production version?

Never.  It will be 2.2. ;)

Argh, I just erased a long reply that explained everything...

This has been asked before, and I'm never quite sure how to answer.

Are there a lot of people using versions 2.1-dev that are just waiting
for a "release"?

Development is slow right now, so maybe we could just take a current
snapshot and call it 2.2.  But then we are back to the same problem when
a bug is fixed:  Use "stable" with a known bug, or a "dev" with the bug
fixed? ;)  Still, calling one snapshot version 2.2 would make admins
happier and give an excuse to spam mailing lists with an announcement,
though.

I use some software that's "released" about once a week.  I'm not sure
that's much better.  Really, each release is just another snapshot in
the development of the program.  It's just a difference in what they
call it.  Maybe that's what is needed for swish -- call it something
besides "dev".  We could have the daily "stable" release. ;)  (I posted
a more clever name once before that would make the admins happy, but I
can't remember it now.)

There are things on the todo list, and *as far as I know*, no major bugs
(anyone know of any?).  The todo items are kind of big, and the current
crop of developers are kind of busy, so now might be a good time if that
helps those with "no development programs" policies.

Maybe it should be an "admins" release. ;)  Because it will be the same
thing, "I'm using 2.2 and it does this weird thing."  Response: "Yes,
that's fixed.  Use 2.3-dev." 

One thing I had wished for before making an official (whatever that
means) release is to have people review the documentation.  Some people
have helped already (thanks!), but the docs could use a good once-over. 

I'm a crappy writer and I can't proof read well at all.  My idea for the
docs is that you start off reading README and that gets you started on
swish (leading to INSTALL and then how to configure and so on.)  I just
want to make sure it all makes sense and is reasonably easy to follow. 
And since if there is a "released" version, that will likely be the
first one new swish users will install.  So it should have good docs.

Colin just suggested calling it 2.1-pre1.  That's fine.  Or just 2.2. 
My guess is that 2.1-dev is probably as bug free and well tested as any
previous "release", so why not make the admins happy and go 2.2?

I don't now about the other developers, but my reason for holding back
on releases is basically because I'm lazy^H^H^H^H busy.  I somehow fear
that a release will have to be supported in some way, instead of just
using the most current version.  It's SO easy to make a fix or change,
CVS update, and then it's done.  (I highly recommend CVS as a method to
get swish.)  

For small open source user-supported programs like swish I wonder if the
system of "releases" is out-dated.

So, would a few people be willing to review the docs?  You don't have to
be an expert swish user -- and in fact it's better if not.  There isn't
really that much to review.  It would also be REALLY useful for someone
to go through the examples in the conf directory one by one.  That's
suppose to be a little hands-on tutorial to get new users started.

Ok, enough of my fragmented comments.



-- 
Bill Moseley
Received on Thu Apr 11 17:23:45 2002