From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R5fLN-0000el-Gj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:01:13 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1R5fLJ-0000Ay-Eh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:01:13 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2D11204025; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:01:03 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Gavin Andresen Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:00:54 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201109181930.59565.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201109191100.58100.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1R5fLJ-0000Ay-Eh Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.4.x stable branch X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:01:13 -0000 On Monday, September 19, 2011 8:49:08 AM Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Luke-Jr wrote: > > If we prepare the git repository + tags, would you guys be > > willing to make the actual release builds + source, and/or post such on > > the websites you administrate? > > Luke and various others in #bitcoin-stable > > My initial reaction is no. Testing and bug-fixing is the bottleneck > for making core bitcoin better, and maintaining two release lines > won't make that better. > > I also think that until we get to a "1.0" that we can all agree is > ready for everybody AND their grandma to use, using the word "stable" > would be dishonest. The problem with the current development model is that bugfixes are done alongside improvements, and code changes *always* have the potential to introduce new bugs, no matter how careful anyone is. So to stay on top of bugfixes right now implies risking new bugs being introduced. What good is getting one bug fixed, if it comes with 20 new yet-to-be-discovered bugs? For example, 0.3.20.2 was the last version if bitcoind before people started experiencing random (albeit rare) deadlocks. However, there have been many bugfixes since then. Since there is no stable branch, someone who wishes to get those bugfixes is forced to either create their own stable branch from scratch, or risk getting all the new bugs introduced in the latest version (most of which are unknown at this time). On the other hand, a stable 0.4.x branch can provide people with upgrades which they know make only the minimal changes required to fix bugs with a much smaller risk of new bugs being introduced (not only are there fewer changes, but bugfixes tend to also be less invasive changes). While there are arguably still various "must-have" features missing from 0.4, having a stable branch also allows people to maintain a stable+ branch with greater ease too.