Re: [trinity-devel] A Project Proposal: Trinity 3.5.14

A proposal: We rename 3.5.13.1 to 3.5.14 and release Real Soon Now. We rename R14 to R15. We do some serious testing with the version changes to ensure our build scripts work. We set a goal to release 3.5.14 within a month. We stop twiddling our thumbs and move forward. Few people are going to pay attention that 3.5.13.1 is available. Not to mention that after almost a year we release only an SRU version? People will pay more attention that 3.5.14 is available. Basic marketing psychology. Yes, currently 3.5.14 (3.5.13.1) does not support a HAL-less system. We add Serghei's udisks support and run some serious short term testing. Even if udisks support is incomplete, within the month we advertise that 3.5.14 offers partial support for HAL-less systems and that R15 will provide full support. The free/libre software world moves fast. Trinity has not been in the news in any meaningful way for almost a year. Users are not going to wait for Trinity. People forget. The latest challenges with automounting means some serious work ahead before R15 can be released, not to mention that the bug tracker continues to grow with little resolution progress. We are falling behind. Not a great image. We decide whether Trinity is going to move forward or become a niche piece of software used only by a relatively few people. The longer we proverbially fiddle while Rome burns, the easier users forget about Trinity. We release 3.5.14 because we need a stable release, which 3.5.13 was not and the current R14 is not, and because we need to get Trinity back into the news. The current R14 (proposed R15) has too many bugs and build issues to be considered for release in the near future. How long do we keep fiddling? We should release 3.5.14 Real Soon Now. We get serious about releasing something Real Soon Now to keep Trinity in the news, or accept our fate as a niche project. We can do this if we get serious. Or we keep picking the lint out of our belly buttons. Basically, summer vacation needs to end. :-) Thoughts? Darrell