[Swift-devel] Next Swift release

[Ioan Raicu]

How about 0.91, or 0.95?

-- 
=================================================================
Ioan Raicu, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
=================================================================
Computer Science Department
Illinois Institute of Technology
10 W. 31st Street
Stuart Building, Room 237D
Chicago, IL 60616
=================================================================
Cel:    1-847-722-0876
Office: 1-312-567-5704
Email:  iraicu at cs.iit.edu
Web:    http://www.cs.iit.edu/~iraicu/
=================================================================
=================================================================



On 12/6/2010 2:49 PM, Michael Wilde 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