Subject: Re: morning hack...
From: Mike Nordell (tamlin@algonet.se)
Date: Thu Apr 12 2001 - 19:13:26 CDT
Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> A hurried 1.0 does not mean a good product... To quote the SG motto - "1.0
> isn't the end, it's the beginning." But I'd rather have a 1.0 with much
more
> than they (or even we) had anticipated, and I think that our users would
> agree. 1.0 by year's end would be a good timeframe, IMNSHO.
I'd also like to add that we to release a 1.0 would need to have a freeze at
least one month long. This is what I think is the minimum amount of time to
wash out the bugs. I believe we need our 1.0 to be *rock-solid*. Not one
single crash, not one single misbehaviour and so on should be allowed. This
is what I believe the only way to get the credibility we need in the future.
Especially since we apparently have been mocked for less stability in the
past (or so I've been told).
Am I insane? I think not, but your comments would be appreciated re. this
issue.
> To that effect, I'd be more than happy to release a 0.8.0 in another few
> weeks and begin a new development series - "0.8.0 - the road to 0.9.0". I
> don't like our current numbering scheme at all.
>
> Thoughts, comments, suggestions?
Re. the numbering, it all depends if we're gonna use some Linux (and then
almost globally adopted?) numbering scheme where odd and even dot-releases
means different things. As long we don't run a 0.99pl'x' for more than six
months. :-)
/Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Apr 12 2001 - 19:13:12 CDT