if we are not planning to add new features and just bugfixes then I understand it's a beta
On 2/24/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 24 Feb 07, at 1:05 PM 24 Feb 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > +1 for a beta, if everything it's cool let's go for 1.1 and push to -1 for beta This version has so many changes it cannot be called a beta until it has been tried en masse. It is most certainly an alpha. Jason. > 1.1.1 whatever else that needs to be fixed > > On 2/23/07, Jesse McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I was talking to trygve a bit on irc and it dovetailed nicely with >> some plans I had talked about late last year in regard to >> continuum...I am just about a month late is all. We thought we ought >> to take a poll on here about continuum and see what folks thought. >> This is not a vote, its just a poll and perhaps a discussion starter >> on short to mid term plans with continuum. I just know it bothers me >> a bit everytime someone pops on IRC and asks questions about >> continuum >> 1.0.3...which is quite aged atm with so many of the bugs on it >> resolved on the trunk. >> >> >> >> >> Question: Should we take all the work that has been done on >> continuum >> in the last year+ and get it pushed out as an Alpha1 or a Milestone1 >> or some suitable equivalent? >> >> [+1/0/-1] >> >> >> jesse >> >> >> >> -- >> jesse mcconnell >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > -- > I could give you my word as a Spaniard. > No good. I've known too many Spaniards. > -- The Princess Bride >
-- I could give you my word as a Spaniard. No good. I've known too many Spaniards. -- The Princess Bride