Subject: Re: Topic: Tables and 1.0
From: WJCarpenter (bill-abisource@carpenter.ORG)
Date: Wed May 02 2001 - 01:37:53 CDT
eric> All of the above are the *general* reasons why you should not
eric> even consider adding tables to 1.0. I'll spare you the list
eric> traffic of pasting this content into every thread that Dom just
eric> started.
I think there are two different lines of discussion disguised as one
here. There's the "should we do tables now?" thread, and there's the
"should we call a soon-ish release '1.0'?" thread. People are
blending the two into "should we have tables in the '1.0' release that
we're doing soon?"
Well, the answer to the blended question is pretty obvious. Since
nobody has raised their hand to say they were contemplating serious
work on tables, it clearly is unlikely to be done soon. I haven't
heard anyone say "hold the next release until tables are there". I
have heard people say "tables are important and the label '1.0'
shouldn't be applied until there are tables (or this or that other
feature)".
Nobody will lose their job if tables aren't done for another year.
Nobody will have their stock options go underwater if a release called
"1.0" isn't fielded in 2001. In other words, these are entirely
reconcilable constraints.
The original feature list for 1.0 is just plain wrong, or at least the
labels were arbitrarily chosen (no need to repeat for my sake how it
was arrived at ... I have heard it a couple of time and I am
listening; I'm just unconvinced that it is relevant). I don't know if
it was wrong when it was drawn up a few years ago (probably was).
This is not a new category of fast evolving software. This is an
established field. You can't market an automobile these days that
isn't at least pre-wired for audio; you could before it was something
that every auto had.
-- bill@carpenter.ORG (WJCarpenter) PGP 0x91865119 38 95 1B 69 C9 C6 3D 25 73 46 32 04 69 D6 ED F3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:00 CDT