Subject: Re: Call for writers - help us with the user documentation
From: Daniel Lawrence (iwritecode@programmer.net)
Date: Mon Apr 30 2001 - 17:36:14 CDT
Ron Ross wrote:
>
> Jesper Skov <jskov@zoftcorp.adsl.dk> writes:
>
> [...]
> > Actually, I was giving half a thought to abandoning x.y.z versioning
> > altogether and, where we would have gone for 0.9, go for:
> >
> > Release 42
> >
> > Then we mess around and do our stuff. When we think it's time we got a
> > new release out the door, we do weekly stabilizing beta releases:
> >
> > Release 43 pre 1
> > Release 43 pre 2
> > Release 43 pre 3
> > Release 43 pre 4
> > ... whatever it takes...
> > Release 43
> >
> > It's open ended, and we are bound by no established versioning
> > scheme. Also, by committing to weekly releases we set ourselves
> > measurable goals that should help make progress more visible for
> > interested users who want to help test.
> >
> > If we want to fix bugs in a release, do
> >
> > Release 43 Build 2
> > Release 43 Build 3
> > ...
> >
> >
> > But I'm not sure the world is ready for something like this :)
>
> I'm not sure about incrementing to such high version numbers, but I like
> the basic scheme proposed here. Produce a stable version, with the
> current feature set, that gets incremented by minor version numbers as
> bug fixes are incorporated, while continuing development on another
> tree, labeled as StableVersion+1.preX, accessible to the public but with
> added proviso about developmental software. This is how Linux kernel
> does it, more or less, and the scheme was always clear to me, even as
> "newbie". I tend to favour rms's view on being conservative in
> announcing stable releases, but think it's not my place to press the
> case here. However, the scheme proposed would have the benefit of making
> immediately known to the user that some really crucial/nifty features
> that are absent from the current stable release -- whatever the version
> number -- are being actively developed.
>
> Ron
You gotta second on that. I really like this proposed naming scheme. I'm
sure it has advantages that we don't see now. And about the world being
ready for it: hell ya! The serious Users/SUs/Hackers want this scheme,
or at least that's the impression I get. Ron made a good pt. about end
users seeing active development on the project. (in fact this is one of
the reasons I am patient with the features of AbiWord or the ones that
it lacks. :-) ) I hear ppl talking about how Version X of RandomSoftware
is crummy and needs a software patch and the XYZ Software company is to
busy to make an upgrade till a year later.....etc etc. So if they see a
active project it really help major. I think this naming scheme will do
that....
Looks like it's time for me to learn C/C++.....%-p
Daniel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 17:59:48 CDT