Release plan: Difference between revisions

m
m (→‎2.10: more lessons learned from the dev list)
Line 206: Line 206:
* How about having a test run a week or two in advance, just to make sure  we can indeed produce release installers for Win+Mac - and then release  the first RC on December 17th/18th or 19th [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38765.html]
* How about having a test run a week or two in advance, just to make sure  we can indeed produce release installers for Win+Mac - and then release  the first RC on December 17th/18th or 19th [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38765.html]
* To get to the 3.0 goal sometime in the near future, it's probably a good  idea to create a backlog of open items in the wiki and link the release plan document to that. As usual, we don't have to be perfect for a new major release number. But the new features being the reason for the new major  number should work reasonably correct.  [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38888.html] (also see [[:Category:Developer Plans]])
* To get to the 3.0 goal sometime in the near future, it's probably a good  idea to create a backlog of open items in the wiki and link the release plan document to that. As usual, we don't have to be perfect for a new major release number. But the new features being the reason for the new major  number should work reasonably correct.  [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38888.html] (also see [[:Category:Developer Plans]])
* A normal Linux user has practically no change to get last stable on his box running if it isn't in his distro - a normal Windows user gets everything nice and streamlined. [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38817.html]


==== 2.8 ====
==== 2.8 ====