From xemacs-m  Sun Jan  5 17:00:21 1997
Received: from UCSD.EDU (mailbox1.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.53])
          by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id RAA13139 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:00:20 -0600 (CST)
Received: from sdnp5.ucsd.edu (sdnp5.ucsd.edu [132.239.79.10]) by UCSD.EDU (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA03513 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by sdnp5.ucsd.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA05267; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:58:14 -0800
Sender: dmoore@sdnp5.ucsd.edu
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: release plan (was Re: XEmacs 20.0-b34 is released)
References: <m2k9ps3hae.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> 	<199701050420.XAA07275@spacely.icd.teradyne.com> <199701051748.KAA02986@branagh.lanl.gov> <m2iv5bvkpf.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
X-Face: "oX;zS#-JU$-,WKSzG.1gGE]x^cIg!hW.dq>.f6pzS^A+(k!T|M:}5{_%>Io<>L&{hO7W4cicOQ|>/lZ1G(m%7iaCf,6Qgk0%%Bz7b2-W3jd0m_UG\Y;?]}4s0O-U)uox>P3JN)9cm]O\@,vy2e{`3pb!"pqmRy3peB90*2L
Mail-Copies-To: never
From: David Moore <dmoore@UCSD.EDU>
Date: 05 Jan 1997 14:58:14 -0800
In-Reply-To: Steven L Baur's message of 05 Jan 1997 14:08:44 -0800
Message-ID: <rvbub3viex.fsf_-_@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
Lines: 45
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.78/XEmacs 19.15


Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:
> >>>>> "John" == John Turner <turner@xdiv.lanl.gov> writes:

> An alternative is to push 20.0 into the first or second week of
> February.  I don't think we can avoid shortening the interval between
> releases of v20.  We can also move my suggested date for 19.15 release
> forward.  That would give 3 to 4 weeks between 19.15 and 20.0.

	Moving 19.15 forward sounds possibly doable, since it seems
pretty stable compared to v20.

> John> o I do think simultaneous release is a bad idea.

> I gathered that was what Chuck's original plans were.  I am
> indifferent either way.  Assuming that we release 19.15 next week say,
> and 20.0 the first week of February, and there needs to be a 19.16
> maintenance release when would you suggest releasing it?

	Simultaneous release strikes me as a bad idea also.  Working in
two source trees is a pain, but working in two source trees while
getting seperate bug reports for those two trees is even worse.  If a
lot of problems arise after release, the load can be more readily spread
out to support a single version, as others have mentioned.

	If you released 19.15 next week say, and 20.0 in early Feb. It
seems that a 19.16 could be done in mid-feb if needed, but hopefully it
won't be needed? :)

> John> Steve, I know you tried to resolve this a month or so ago, but
> John> maybe it's worth talking about again.  If 19.15 is canned, then
> John> I (and everybody else) need(s) to start working out 20.0 with a
> John> vengance...

	Yes, this would be good to decide, since I haven't been spending
much (any) time on v20.


Just some random thoughts from a list newbie.

-- 
David Moore <dmoore@ucsd.edu>       | Computer Systems Lab      __o
UCSD Dept. Computer Science - 0114  | Work: (619) 534-8604    _ \<,_
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114             | Fax:  (619) 534-1445   (_)/ (_)
<URL:http://oj.egbt.org/dmoore/>    |

