W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > September 2004

Re: validator-0_6_0-branch still alive?

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:12:58 +0200
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <r02010300-1035-168A558904B511D98FFD0030657B83E8@[]>

Hash: SHA1

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>Well, forgetting about the branch would have no cost, maintaining it
>with several fixes, testing, a beta release for more testing, then a
>release along with an announcement, people upgrading, etc. is more
>costly. Doing this now - i.e., about two months after 0.6.7 - would not
>really make sense to me for some minor fixes.

Oh, ok.

The idea is we keep :80 sync'ed to that branch in CVS, so that we make any
needed fixes for the running service there. Only if the number and scope of
fixes accumulates to a point where it makes sense — and it really really
shouldn't! — do we make an actual Release of this. Otherwise we just package
up a new 0.6.8 tarball when we release 0.7.0 and note it in a footnote «…for
those who need to keep running the 0.6.x codebase.» (if even that...)

IOW, the branch is there only to provide a convenient way to fix the running
service on :80. It's not intended that there be (a need for) any more 0.6.x
releases as such.

One of the corollaries to that is that if a change on the 0.6.x branch wants a
beta release before sync'ing :80, then it probably shouldn't go in the 0.6.x
branch at all.

Objections? Does that adress your concerns Björn?

- -- 
Editor's note: in the last update,   we noted that Larry Wall would "vomment"
on existing RFCs. Some took that to be a cross between "vomit" and "comment."
We are unsure of whether it was a subconscious slip or a typographical error.
We are also unsure of whether or not to regret the error.      -- use.perl.org

Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3

Received on Sunday, 12 September 2004 12:13:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:46 UTC