[zeromq-dev] 2.1.8?

Garrett Smith g at rre.tt
Mon Aug 29 17:21:07 CEST 2011

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure schedules are useful since we are always on a curve (more
> releases when a branch is immature, fewer as it matures). But in
> general we release when there've been a reasonable number of fixes and
> changes.
> We've tried limited releases before, e.g. tagging on the repository,
> but in fact close to no-one tests them. Experience tells us that
> people only test official releases and for the most part, stable
> releases only. You can see, e.g. how few issues we have on 3.0.0.

I'm of the opinion that "release candidates" are a vestige of time
when releases were more expensive (e.g. burnt to CDs) and that the
intent was to get everything just right. That's just not the way
things work these days.

I can't recall who does this, but one of the major projects uses an
even-odd scheme to manage stable vs development lineages. E.g. the
even releases have are more conservative and odd more relaxed.

In any case, I personally don't care for the "rc" tag and am fine with
rolling releases, some of which are more stable than others -- in the
end, it's the list of known issues and release notes that matter.


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list