[LLVMdev] RE: LLVM 1.3 release discussion

Chris Lattner sabre at nondot.org
Thu Jul 15 16:37:16 PDT 2004

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> > There is always a tension between releasing too frequently (so people
> > never bother to run the latest and greatest) or releasing too slowly (CVS
> > drifts too much from the latest release).  I agree that a release every 3
> > months seems best.
> On the other hand, I also believe that each release should be targeted
> towards some scope. The devs should get together at the start of a release
> cycle, sign up for what they'll do in the next 3 months, and a (loose) plan
> should be set for the next release. Having an objective for the release is
> important to keep it on focus.

Hrm, I don't know if this is really possible in a loosely organized
open-source project.  Everyone sorta works on what interests them, and it
gets integrated into the tree.  There isn't a big driver saying that this
and that feature will be implemented: it's whatever people are interested

> If it all gets done in 2 months, fine,
> release early. If it isn't done in 3 months, either cut scope (back out
> changes) or decide to extend .. but never beyond 4 months. Of course, there
> should always be wiggle room for new ideas, contributed patches, etc. The
> release target should be just a guideline of the major new functionality and
> bug fixes to be addressed. Sound reasonable?

This isn't really how we work.  Due to the nature of how LLVM is
developed, mainline CVS is ALWAYS stable.  There may be minor transient
bugs that go in, but we don't have "periods of instability".  This is
primarily due to the incremental nature of our development.

Because of this, we can basically release whenever we want, controlled by
testing packaging and end-user pains.



More information about the llvm-dev mailing list