Now I'm curious...

[Ricard Wanderlof]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Denys Vlasenko wrote:

> ...
> The truth is, stability and development are mutually exclusive, if you want
> more stability, you inevitably lose some development speed.
> And this is exactly what happened.
> ...
> We can decide to allow more unstable uclibc svn head, with the agreement
> that when it will be decided to do a release, we will have x.x.0 unstable
> and people will work on fixing on the regressions for x.x.1, x.x.2,
> _especially_ on the regressions caused by *their* changes.
>
> Between releases, people who need stable uclibc will use last stable
> release, and add bugfixes for that release to it's own stable branch.

I second this. I think part of the problem was that releases have been 
further and further apart, and 0.9.28 was more bug-ridden than was 
comfortable, leading to a need for having a stable svn head just to be 
able to get something up-to-date which was still reasonably stable.

I think with the introduction of 0.9.29, and a potential 0.9.29.1 not 
being to far down the road should the need arise, this fear of a non 
stable head should be significantly reduced.

(I don't know if there's been some sort of parallel with buildroot 
development, where the svn head really is the latest release. This is a 
different case though as buildroot is not a library we need to trust, just 
a collection of stuff put together in a practical way.)

/Ricard
--
Ricard Wolf Wanderlöf                           ricardw(at)axis.com
Axis Communications AB, Lund, Sweden            www.axis.com
Phone +46 46 272 2016                           Fax +46 46 13 61 30