On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 09:11 +0200, Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:
Duncan Coutts wrote:
So by arguing for new features in minor releases we're saying we should have a 4-6 week cycle. New library features every 6 weeks.
Now perhaps 12 months is too long (I think it is). Perhaps 6 months is too long even (though many other groups have settled on 6 months). But surely 6 weeks is far too short. That means essentially no synchronisation effect at all.
If the majority opinion is that 6 months is too long to wait for new features, then how about 4 months, or even 3? Do people see the point I'm trying to make about the value of synchronisation?
Can the Haskell Platform be uninstalled / upgraded seamlessly?
This depends on the packaging for each OS. The Windows installer will install a new ghc and set of packages without disturbing existing installations. The source based installer will do the same (though it has no builtin uninstall facility). Not sure yet about OSX.
I think it's a key technical requirement for shorter release cycles that installing a new release does not break due to any old ones that were installed previously.
It is possible in principle though many distro packaging systems only allow one version of a package at once. I think distros would prefer the slightly longer release cycle. They already deal with many projects that work on 6 month cycles. However they could probably cope with 4 months. They cope with the Linux kernel's 3 month cycle, though they often skip some major releases. Duncan