Anton Tagunov wrote:
BL> As this does not refer to a bug, I think I would like to focus on a
BL> Fortress 1.0 release. We can apply this and whatever other patches
BL> for the next release (which can be soon afterwards if we want).
BL> All, I think we are reaching the point where we are delaying Fortress
BL> without resolving bugs. While all the patches are generally good, and
BL> we would like to make it into Fortress, do we think that Fortress is
BL> Good Enough(TM) to release now?
This ll sounds good to me (TM :),
but since a new release candidate has not been
rolled out yet, maybe we'll incorporate this too?
Actually, I am in the process of shaking out bugs that were
inadvertantly introduced--and only detectable at runtime. I
am using my GUIApp project to do it.
People will start experimenting with Fortress
and I would rather give them a smoth path to do it.
It is already so much better than what it is replacing: ECM.
We can always improve it for a quick second release.
Of course, code is freezed at relase cycle to shake out
bugs, but can we hope that these changes are so incremental
and so starightforward that they don't introduce any new?
With a will to get this patch in and without a will to
create any new before the release
Fortress users have been wanting to have something released for a long
time. I think it is about time that we give it to them. It is always
easier to relax contracts than to stiffen them. We can make this patch
a post 1.0 thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
