Release Process

[Biju Chacko]

Jasper Huijsmans wrote:
> Structure is good, three month is too short ;)
> 
> Maybe we should try to keep to 6 month. We could (should?) start doing real
> alpha releases after three month. With real alpha I mean, no feature freeze,
> and no API stability guarantee.
> 
> Trying to define goals is good too, but pretty hard. Especially since  none 
> of us can guarantee how much time they will be able to spend on it. Well, I
> can't at least ;-)

Alternatively, we should follow the dual release philosophy followed by 
many projects. Have regular development releases. I don't think that 
would add much overhead to the system ...

As it is we have a separate stable branch, all this would add is the 
process of creating tarballs of CVS HEAD.

The point is that the life of a project is often judged by the 
recentness of it's releases.

And we really should reduce the entry barrier for running our latest 
code. It is in our interest that as many people as possible test our 
code. Limiting that number to the people who have the inclination to 
pull from CVS is probably not a good idea.

-- b