Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.182; envelope-from=ampedal@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qy0-f182.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201109201637.52006.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201109181930.59565.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CA+8xBpd9wBGLBnfXr=OiLYxVPvxegoi+eMqHFqpQRoaVW1uvKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201109201637.52006.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:24:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL0fb63P9CLEi3dRumYJzj2jSAggULzei8THW6wYJJ5ZpGmcXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alex Waters <ampedal@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.4.x stable branch
Precedence: list

I think what Jeff has said is ideal for a stable 1.0 or 1.1 release of
a kernal. I also think it's absolutely the direction we should be
heading in, but not this afternoon. The desire to keep a 0.4.x stable
branch is a symptom of a bigger QA problem, one that I am attempting
to address in general.

Gavin has reminded me to test, test, test. I implore anyone who clicks
the pull button to not only test their code, but write down how they
tested it. The issue tracker is somewhat out of control, and my
opinion is that a stable branch is not going to fix it.

This stage of development can be agitating, as you implement code in
the wild - it is outpaced or broken easily. The sooner we can get a
robust QA process to hammer out bugs, and process pulls - the closer
we are to a stable 1.0 release.

Please contact me if you would like to help contribute to the bug
hammering - I promise that we can find ways to make it
interesting/challenging. (working on a zapper too!)