[ANN] bzr 2.4.0 has gone gold

[Gordon Tyler]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:55:11 +0200, vila <vila+bzr at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Gordon Tyler <gordon at doxxx.net> writes:
>     > I'm going to put off packaging the Mac OS X installer until at
least
>     > bzr-svn and qbzr are released since I consider those major
plugins.
> 
> I'd rather have packages and installers based on specific revids than
> delay them.

I see no point in releasing an installer if I know that a particular
plugin requires some work to be compatible with the new version of bzr.
That's on-par with Oracle's JDK7 release. :P

I also don't want to release an "official" installer which bundles some
arbitrarily selected revision of a major plugin and have the plugin author
mad at me because I couldn't wait.

> Our users care less than us about having stable branches for plugins and
> as long as we document which revisions are used (which we do already for
> all the package/installers I'm aware of) that's fine.
> 
> Using dedicated branches is aimed at facilitating plugin author lifes
> but if they prefer a different workflow, that's fine too.

Whether they have a dedicated branch or not doesn't really matter much to
me, so long as there is either a relatively recent tarball release or some
indication that a particular revision should be used. Otherwise I have to
assume that the tip of trunk is "stable". So far that hasn't been a problem
(that I know of), but I fear it will come back to bite me in the ass one
day.

> Now, we could try to reach each plugin author and tell him which
> revision has been used so that it's at least tagged there if only for
> our own needs.

One would hope that bzr plugin authors are subscribed to the bzr mailing
list.

Ciao,
Gordon