Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Release early, release often? - What about a new release?
Done:
http://wiki.wireshark.org/Development/IljasBugList
I've made a pass through the list and checked in changes, but it would
be nice if others could do so.
I'll create the 0.99.2 trunk later today, along with 0.99.2pre1.
ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> can you put iljas list on a wiki so one can remove each item from
> the list as they are addresses?
>
>
> On 7/10/06, Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi List!
>>
>> The current release situation is unsatisfying IMHO.
>>
>> The last official release is the Ethereal 0.99.0 version from April 24,
>> 2006 which is about 10 weeks ago and contains some frequently reported
>> (and quite annoying) bugs in the win32 export functions (and obviously
>> elsewhere).
>>
>> The official note of the Wireshark switch was at Jun 7, 2006, more than
>> a month ago.
>>
>> But we still don't have an official Wireshark release!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> There are some known bugs (e.g. the list from Ilja van Sprundel) that
>> would be nice to be fixed before the next release, of course.
>> Unfortunately, nobody seems to have the time or motivation to fix them
>> (including myself) :-(
>>
>> However, the reported bugs are certainly in the 0.99.0 release as well,
>> so every user will be vulnerable to them right now, if we release a new
>> version or not.
>>
>> Releasing a new version would:
>> - don't confuse our users with the current situation!!! (try to explain
>> this to someone else and you know what I mean)
>> - make the new name better known
>> - release the fixes we've already done (so we won't get repeated bug
>> reports at least for them)
>>
>> So what are we waiting for?
>>
>> Waiting for all bugs to be fixed before a new release might not be the
>> right thing to do, as it postpones the release for fixes we've already
>> done and there are a lot of them since the last official release.
>>
>> The saying "release early, release often" has it's reasons. Getting back
>> to a release cycle of about 4-6 weeks (which we've done some time ago)
>> seems to work better IMO.
>>
>> Regards, ULFL
>>
>> P.S: If the effort to release a new version is too high, then the
>> release process should be simplified or automated (I guess that Gerald
>> is still a bit busy from moving) ;-)
>> P.P.S: One of the reasons I'm complaining is: I'm currently postpone the
>> committing of some substantial changes to the DCOM dissector for some
>> weeks now, as I thought we would get a new release shortly. I've
>> postponed them as they will certainly introduce new bugs. Hmmm, now I
>> don't have a good backup concept for these changes and setting up my own
>> subversion server to keep these changes will probably end up in my own
>> private Wireshark fork (which I really don't like to have).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wireshark-dev mailing list
>> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
