[Backgroundrb-devel] Restarting BackgrounDRb Means Restarting Mongrel?
tsanders at hiddenjester.com
Sun Jul 6 19:05:34 EDT 2008
Indeed. I wasn't trying to hurry you, I was just curious what the
status was. Having said that, there's big perceived difference in
stability between saying "We're using the 1.0.3 release" and "We're
using the latest from git, which appears to be stable". I'm sure the
current version *IS* stabler, but there's also a comfort level in
having a tagged version, and it's just simply a matter of the
processes and procedures in use on my project saying that we want a
stable released version of all libraries in the production
environment. If you were just a few days away from a major release
then I'd agree that waiting for the list you wrote up is a good idea,
but if you want more hands testing the current version of the master
branch I'd suggest packing it up as a 1.0.4 updating it both in git
It seems a little like a chicken and the egg scenario where you want
users to test out the new version, but some set of users won't be able
to check it until there's a tagged version. While I can use any
version I want in development, it's going to be a bigger deal for me
to try to sell using the current version in production. And truthfully
it's a little tricky for me to even go to a new version in development
if I have no idea how long it will be before that version would be
suitable for production.
It's possible that some of the issue here is simply that I'm not
familiar with git - so maybe the master branch is equivalent to a
tagged release. But if the "master branch" is basically the same thing
as the "trunk revision" would be in svn or cvs, then if it's the
version you want people using in production environments then I would
encourage you to give it a new version number. If nothing else, simply
so people can talk about what version the problem is against.
Otherwise we're all in a sort of limbo where the master version can
change at any moment and it's difficult to describe what version
anybody is actually using.
My impression is that you feel if I was pushing a version to
production today that I should use the git master, not 1.0.3, but
that's not really a good solution for everyone. If the git master is a
better version than 1.0.3, then it really deserves it's own version
tag, and that's more important to me than whether said tag is 1.0.4,
1.1, or 2.0.
On Jul 6, 2008, at 12:17 PM, hemant wrote:
> In past, I had some bad experience with hurried releases and don't
> want to repeat the same mistake, in the meanwhile, you can happily use
> git master, it works pretty rock solid and whenever required i roll
> out new fixes.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4619 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Backgroundrb-devel