Re: 2.4 timetable

>
> Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>>
>>
>> I would like us to release 2.5 week on Fri, July 15 -- I think the HEAD
>> is as stable as the current stable release, and we have made a good
>> inrows into the bug count. If you feel there are reasons not to release
>> next Friday, then best if you indicate so in the bugzilla.
>>
>
> There are at least 15 open regressions in Bugzilla that were introduced
> during 2.3.x alone; there are 81 known bugs that cause AbiWord to hang,
> crash, or lose data; there are 897 known bugs in total, although that
> number may be a bit high due to every bug being marked as new since the
> recent Bugzilla upgrade.
>
> CVS-HEAD is not stable enough to soon become 2.4.0 or even replace
> 2.2.8, and that fact is made worse by having had only two 2.3.x
> releases. This feature freeze hasn't seen enough bug fixing to say it's
> made good inroads on the bug count, especially considering the fact that
> a lot of fixes have caused regressions or introduced new bugs.
>
> I think it's quite clear that I'm against having 2.4 so early and it's
> not solely because of the most recent regressions; it's because AbiWord
> simply gets buggier with every release. It may not crash or corrupt your
> data as easily as it used to, but AbiWord still lives up to the buggy
> reputation it's earned. Furthermore, feature freezes don't work as well
> as they should because they're either ignored or cut too short.
>
> It was agreed that some serious bugs that blocked 2.2.0 would be fixed
> during the early parts of 2.2.x and block the branching of 2.3.x. Those
> bugs are still valid and it appears that a quick 2.5.x branching is
> planned. I'm quite aware that 2.3.x was branched early due to lack of
> coder morale, but at some point the ever growing bug count needs to be
> addressed if AbiWord wants to seriously be considered a stable and
> polished, production-ready word processor. If it's not done during this
> cycle, it needs to be done soon because features new to 2.0-2.4 are less
> than useful due to the numerous bugs with each and some haven't even
> been tested.
>
> Now, I realize a few of the new features are in the form of plug-ins,
> but if you're going to tout them as highlights of 2.4, you really ought
> to make sure they've at least been eyeballed. And with only two limited
> releases, I can guarantee this hasn't happened - 2.3.x really needs more
> testing and bug fixing before 2.4 can be released. Sorry for the length
> of this email, but these things definitely need to be considered before
> a release occurs.
>

HI sum1,
        as our number 1 QA thaks for injecting a note or reality into this
discussion.

We will keep fixing bugs a bit longer then.

Cheers

Martin
Received on Tue Jul 5 03:24:33 2005