With a month passed since 2.5.0, I wonder if people would prefer me to dump the current progress in 2.6.0?

Out of 18 features planned for 2.6.0, 9 are done and 3 are almost done. The rest could be postponed to 2.7.0, if there is demand...

Before you ask, the roadmap can be viewed here:

@Gargron Bunker mode seems pretty important, but I say push out what you have and 2.7 with the rest!

@Gargron yo lo que tú digas, corazón. Pendiente de tus instrucciones estoy (aunque no las entienda).

@gargron Most stuff I'd like to see is still in the "todo" so I'd say to have them in 2.6 too

@Vetra @rick_777 @gargron I think mastodon uses semantic versioning so that could be super misleading.

@Gargron It feels like the number and size of changes done warrant the bump to 2.6 already.

@Gargron Generally I'm a fan of more releases more often/version numbers are mostly pointless

1) What's wrong with a 2.5.1+ style point release after a series of major commits... this requires more work if you're going to run RCs for each of them tho

2) I'd be a fan of moving to a regular release cycle to allow something like "Mastodon 2018.09"

then we could easily see, this server was last updated in "2017.06" or whatever, and have more pressure on the admin to update the damn thing.

@froosh @Gargron hard semver is fine for microseconds or something. That humans will rarely see.

Running kernel 4.6.3-456 with firmware 3.55 and libc 11.1 means nothing to people.. attaching dates would let you know all of those things were released in the same few months..

@Gargron I'm a bigger fan of more frequent incremental releases so I'd vote for yes.

@Gargron hi, I’m new in mastodon but i would like to help you to improve it... if you need some help please let me know... if I know how to do it then I do it

@Gargron features always go in a x.y.0 release. Bug fixes, critical updates, errata are for x.y.z release. For example having features mixed into a x.y.z release schedule is why i had to cherry-pick the account redirect loop out of the repo vs being able to just update

@david Semver is most meaningful for libraries, not end-user facing software

@david @Gargron Indeed, I'd suggest a 2.5.1 and then a 2.6 with the bunker mode and the account verification

@Gargron Release fast and (not) break things 😀 awesome progress 👍 thanks Eugen!

@Gargron I don't think it's a good idea to put off bunker mode. That's been moved to the next version a couple of times now. :/

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!