On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 23:45 -0700, Vitaliy Margolen wrote: > Friday, December 16, 2005, 11:26:28 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 19:48 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > >> The goal is not to prevent regressions between every minor point > >> release, it's to make releases frequently enough that regressions can > >> be found and fixed quickly, so that they don't creep into the next > >> major release. Now, if you think that doesn't work I'm certainly open > >> to doing things differently. What do you suggest? > >> > > If I may make a humble suggestion, it would be to time another stable > > (or semi-stable), regression-proofed release to roughly coincide with > > the various distributions freezing schedules. Ubuntu, for instance has > > an upstream version freeze on Jan 19th and a Feature Freeze on Feb 2nd. > > In my ideal world, we would have a Wine release just before that Jan > > 19th deadline, go into regression-fix and bughunt mode, and then have a > > release come out around Feb 2nd that had no regressions relative to 0.9 > > and the Jan 19th release. > > That sounds to aggressive to me. We still a long ways away from major > pieces falling into place. Most regressions you see, especially with > games caused be major developments in d3d part of Wine. I don't think > that will be "fixed" by then.
Add six months, then, to time it with the next release. That sounds reasonable. Thanks, Scott Ritchie
