34
Release frequency preferences
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
34 points (94.7% liked)
Selfhosted
40928 readers
650 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I prefer rarer, bigger, more tested updates, since I don't pull the updated docker containers that regularly.
From experience shipping releases, "bigger updates" and "more tested" are more or less antithetical. The testing surface area tends to grow exponentially with the amount of features you ship with a given release, to the point I tend to see small, regular releases, as a better sign of stability.
"Bigger" is a bit missleading here. Really bigger updates obviously require a major version bump to signify to users that there is potential stability or breakage issues expected.
But "bigger" in the other sense i.e. meaning slower, means that there was more time for people to run pre-release versions if they are adventurous and thus there is better testing.
Of course this assumes that there are actual beta testers and that it is easy to do so by creating such beta releases.
If your software is following semver, not necessarily. It only requires a major version bump if a change is breaking backwards compatibility. You can have very big minor releases and tiny major releases.
Again, by experience, this is assuming a lot.
Well usually the opposite happens. People make many releases and outsource the testing to unsuspecting users.
This is IMHO fine if you clearly mark these releases as release candidates or such, so that people can make their own risk judgement. But usually that isn't the case and one minor version looks like any other unless you have a closer look at the actual changes in the code.