DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=maillard.im; h=from:to
	:subject:in-reply-to:references:reply-to:date:message-id
	:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=postfix; b=vk+JMkWVPp1D+Nwn
	iLs6bYX3X/bkCESHlpnvZeRLvyZthjI1yLsIuQha7a/ywdnGFdIeAz4oNAP9eKa1
	75SIBdonUEveN+2HtuQXyIZN7KDXtupGo1zYVU9xExe5X7vSNOht45bhjkEEcJ53
	sNsNp7DI4UuZCL7Ba1FaJzIRWho=
From: Xavier Maillard <xavier@maillard.im>
To: David Bremner <bremner@unb.ca>, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>,
	Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>,
	Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: When will we have our next release?
In-Reply-To: <87ei39g2bn.fsf@zancas.localnet>
References: <878vtile1h.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<87ei39g2bn.fsf@zancas.localnet>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5-194-gb20f9fa (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
	(i486-slackware-linux-gnu)
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:27:33 +0200
Message-ID: <m262olekoa.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Xavier Maillard <xma@gnu.org>

Hi,

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:21:00 -0300, David Bremner <bremner@unb.ca> wrote:

> Overall I think Carl's time based release proposal is a reasonable
> plan. I think one problem we've been having is that we seem to have lost
> track of 
> 
>     # Releases of notmuch have a two-digit version (0.1, 0.2, etc.). We
>     # increment the second digit for each release and increment the first
>     # digit when we reach particularly major milestones of usability.
> 
> In short, I think we are make too big of a deal out of releases. Looking
> at the log between 0.5 and now, there are features enough to justify
> several minor releases.

Or even major ! Frankly, this project has grew up quite quickly and
features are implemented at a really good rythm. The sole problem is
that it is really hard to see how far we are from a release and what
exactly has been cooked up since latest release (from my point of view).
 
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:56:42 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Frankly, I wouldn't mind doing strict time-based releases with something
> > like the following:
> > 
> > 	* We schedule a release period (once per month?)
> 
> I think every two months might be a bit more comfortable, but then
> again, 1 month would keep us from "making a big deal out of releases."

Best before choosing the frequency is probably to try doing this a few
times and be comfortable with the process. If after a few releases
-i.e. say 3- the more we can do is release every trimester so do it.

The process should be simple (and will be I guess) and the most
difficult part is probably to document every aspect of every changes in
the NEWS file (with eventually a good shaped manual ;)).

> > 	* We schedule a "safety period" before the release (one week?)
> > 	* At the beginning of the safety period, package up the head
> >           of the notmuch tree and upload to Debian experimental and
> >           anywhere else similar.
> 
> Sure. I don't mind doing that part, at least for Debian.  I'm going to
> try to do at roughly weekly uploads to Debian experimental. Hopefully
> this will get some critical mass of users testing those versions.

I know it is a bit off topic here but just a question: how will you deal
with dependencies ? I mean, when we need GMime vX.Y.Z and Debian has
already vX.V.W ?

/Xavier