[Swift-devel] Next Swift release

[Glen Hocky]

Been following along. Just a random suggestion but perhaps if you called
this next release **0.10.0* *people would realize that it's
zero-point-ten-point-oh as in 0.10.0> 0.9 not zero-point-one-oh as in
0.10<0.9

-Glen

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Michael Wilde <wilde at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> > here's how i understand it (feel free to correct me):
> >
> > 1.0 is the most recent stable branch ready for release--it's probably
> > what most people *should* be downloading now if they want to start
> > using swift, though our web site still has the 1.5 yr old .9 listed as
> > the release download.
>
> Right - and thus almost no users know about or use the 1.0 branch.
> I only use trunk, as do all the users that I'm working with.
>
> I believe trunk should be the basis for the 12/20 release.
>
> I do not feel we should release test what's in any of the "stable"
> branches.
>
> Instead I feel we should "save" the 1.0 branch for when we are ready for
> doing a 1.0 release: say Jan 31 2011.
>
> I propose we create an 0.10 stable branch as the release candidate for a
> Dec 20 0.10, and that we use tags to mark release candidates in this branch.
>
> > trunk contains 'bleeding edge' code. for a 12/20
> > release we'd want to release something that does not have any new
> > features currently being added to it (just bug fixes).
>
> Yes - but just bug fixes over current trunk.  No new features, just bug
> fixes from tests and any user-reported bugs.  If we can make a release
> candidate this week, we can have users starting to test thus 0.10 RC in
> parallel with our testing.
>
> > i'm suggesting
> > that we do add *some* new doc since that won't break anything and we
> > need to do some cleanup there.
>
> Doc improvements for 0.10 sound good to me, but need to balance the effort
> required vs testing 0.10.
>
> > but documenation for new features
> > should go into the latest trunk doc.
>
> Agreed.  But with "new features" defined as features beyond whats in trunk
> as of this moment.
>
> > if we want to look at releasing what's in trunk RIGHT NOW, it seems to
> > be it should be brached and go into testing mode if we want to get it
> > to a point where it's stable enough to release (?)
>
> Yes, I agree, per above. Lets branch it asap.
>
> Does tagging releae candidates on this branch seem the way to go?
>
> > that said, .9 vs branch 1.0 is a pretty significant upgrade...is why i
> > suggested .10 was rather confusing as a name for it.
>
> I took the name 0.10 from a suggestion by Ben (long ago) to deal with the
> fact that we may need more point-releases between 0.9 and 1.0.
>
> I agree that 0.10 is a *bit* confusing, but Im hoping that this release has
> about a 6-week lifetime from 12/20 to 1/31.
>
> Sound OK?
>
> - Mike
>
> > thoughts?
> >
> > ~sk
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Michael Wilde < wilde at mcs.anl.gov >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Im loosing track, but I thought trunk will become branch 0.10?
> >
> >
> > I wanted to name it based on what we're trying to say to the user
> > community: this next release I feel is still pre-1.0 quality. After
> > more doc cleanup and usability cleanup and web polishing, I feel we're
> > ready to try to make a broader announcement and call it 1.0. Im
> > thinking end of this January for that.
> >
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > feel free, justin. i'm currently editing stuff that i think should go
> > into doc for the 12/20 release (e.g. describing features that exist
> > but aren't documented, etc.).
> >
> > so, branch 1.0 will become release 0.10...seems a bit confusing to
> > me...also considering the differences between 0.9 and what we're
> > releasing doesn't calling it 1.0 make sense? just a thought...
> >
> > ~sk
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Justin M Wozniak < wozniak at mcs.anl.gov
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Sounds great- I was actually thinking about setting up the
> > branch-specific docs later this week, do you already have a start on
> > that?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Sarah Kenny wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > so, my expectation for the release, as we've discussed somewhat on the
> > list
> > already, is to put out swift 1.0 on 12/20 which, as i see it, involves
> > primarily editing of the documentation/web content more so than
> > anything
> > else since all new code (and documentation associated with the new
> > code)
> > going into trunk is expected to be in the 1.1. release--which
> > hopefully we
> > can have out in the next few months. i'm also assuming we're sticking
> > with
> > the plan to allow each release to have its own doc version along with
> > the
> > code.
> >
> > let me know if anyone thinks there are other things that can/should go
> > into
> > the 12/20 release.
> >
> > ~sk
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Michael Wilde < wilde at mcs.anl.gov >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Sarah is going to take the lead in producing the next Swift release,
> > and
> > will propose a release definition and plan. We want to have the
> > release done
> > by Dec 20.
> >
> > - Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Swift-devel mailing list
> > Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
> > http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Justin M Wozniak
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Wilde
> > Computation Institute, University of Chicago
> > Mathematics and Computer Science Division
> > Argonne National Laboratory
>
> --
> Michael Wilde
> Computation Institute, University of Chicago
> Mathematics and Computer Science Division
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swift-devel mailing list
> Swift-devel at ci.uchicago.edu
> http://mail.ci.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/swift-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/swift-devel/attachments/20101206/6ab9462d/attachment.html>