a request out of bugzilla
Thomas Bushnell BSG
tb at becket.net
Fri Aug 20 16:22:01 EDT 2004
Derek Atkins <warlord at MIT.EDU> writes:
> You're welcome to just keep the 1.8 (release) branch instead of CVS
> HEAD. It's only fair to _US_ that you verify that a bug exists before
> passing it on. Something like this would have been a simple
> source-code check to verify "oh, that's already been fixed."
I agree completely that a source-code check is appropriate, and I will
do that in the future. As you note, in this case that would have been
> Having multiple builds is relatively easy. I've got /opt/gnucash-cvs,
> /opt/gnucash-1.8, and /opt/gnucash-g2 on my system. I can run
> whichever version I want by specifying the appropriate path. It works
> quite well for a number of people.
Right, but I have limited numbers of computers at my disposal. It's
the overhead of building the lastest cvs that is the obstacle.
> Releases require non-zero effort. It takes a good deal of time to get
> the translations finished, tag the release, re-test all the code,
> package it up, re-test the package, and then get it to our builders to
> make new packages. This detracts from the work we want to do --
> getting the g2 port finished. We have precious few developer
> resources as it is to put out what many of us consider "frivolous
Of course I agree quite completely. I'm not saying "release faster";
I'm saying that one reason for regular releases is because users will
report bugs against the latest release, and that's all it's really
fair to ask them to track.
3-6 months definitely counts as "regular releases" in my book.
More information about the gnucash-devel