Re: [Bug-gnubg] gnubg release schedule

[Nardy Pillards]

From: "Gary Wong" <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:21 PM
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 10:40:25AM +0000, Joern Thyssen wrote:
> > I think you proprosal with a "stable" branch is fine. Although it'll
> > probably give some extra work for the builders: most users will most
> > likely want to run on the "stable" branch, but I'm sure that there are
> > someone out there who wants the new features X and Y, and just can't
> > wait for 0.14.0 "stable" :-)
> >
> > How do we handle the transition from 0.13.x "stable" to 0.14.0
> > "stable"?  Do we have a feature freeze, say, 2 weeks before the
> > scheduled 0.14.0 release?  Or do we just make a 0.14.0 (and *don't*
> > call it stable yet!), and wait for it to stabilise?
>
> Hrmmm... not sure, but I lean towards the latter.  (It would be a
> shame to freeze the trunk at this point, I think.)
>
> We could either release a 0.x.0 tarball and label it "unstable", or
> create the 0.x CVS branch and listen for bug reports on the CVS code
> and/or binary snapshots until we think the 0.x branch is ready to be
> called stable.
>
> Cheers,
> Gary.
> --

I can only speak for Win32 builds.
021212 was a stable one.
But todays build has improved rollouts, movefilters, .... several
'indispensable' things.

Yet todays impossibility to run latest builds on old PCs, the problems with
freetype and some Win98 computers, the memory leaks (if that is the reason)
causing gnubg to crash after a while on some other PCs, and the annoying
'GDK warning' popping up after changing colors of the board (and after
exiting the program)...
it would be nice to have a 'whatever version' been called 'stable' with
todays features, but without the inconveniences.

I think there is a need for most users to be able to install a stable GNU
Backgammon. And to have a tutorial (or 'All About') or FAQ that is 'up to
date'.

There will always be people eager to have the most recent build, but there
is (I think) a majority that would be pleased with a 'once every month' (or
every two month) release with a new tutorial (all abou/faq/...).
So if they ask a question, they don't have to add the build# to get an
answer, and they don't have to dig out wich DLLs and other files are needed
for their version.

It seems to me, GNUBg is almost mature. Mature enough to be 'thrown out' to
the world. And in that world, many backgammon players are ready to use it.
But when 2 to 3 weeks seems a fair time to get used to it.... meanwhile the
program changed, the interface changed, the features changed. And not
everyone is willing to keep up with those changes day after day.

(and thinking about an install program uploaded somewhere, so the stable
builds would be available in an easy way for Win users, same way as nowdays
the weight versions are available)

But...
only speaking of Win32 builds.


Nardy