Re: [IMP-dev] Git and IMP and more frequent releases
To: List for IMP development <>
Subject: Re: [IMP-dev] Git and IMP and more frequent releases
From: Daniel Russel <>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:39:04 -0700
Reply-to: List for IMP development <>
Makes sense to get the next release out the door before any big changes, assuming that will happen in the next couple of months. I don't think every 6 months is frequent enough to solve the main problem regarding people who only update IMP infrequently. Not so much due to the period per se, but rather the latency, since their updates tend to be driven by needing some new feature and with a 6 month release cycle, that means waiting 3 months on average.
I also think, with a git-flow type of setup and with the infrastructure Ben setup for nightly builds, releases should become close to free. That is, all unstable stuff should be in a separate branch, so it is just taking the main branch and rebasing the release branch off of it. And no significant cleanup needed.
On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Ben Webb wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 09:54 AM, Daniel Russel wrote:
>> At the imp-dev meeting yesterday, the question of switching to git
>> from svn was raised. The hope is that it would facilitate having more
>> frequent mini-releases of IMP (monthly being a target) as it makes it
>> much easier to maintain parallel development threads.
> We already committed to 6 month releases for the upcoming funding period. Personally I think every month is too frequent for anything but minor bug fixes, but we'll see how it plays out. I'll look into git, but I'd rather get a stable release out the door before any major infrastructural changes (MultiFit is the blocker here, of course, but all the major hurdles are out of the way there now).
> "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data."
> - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
> IMP-dev mailing list