On 7 May 2013, at 21:02, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07.05.2013 20:22, Olemis Lang wrote: >> Sorry I missed this message ... >> >> On 5/7/13, Peter Koželj <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Agree, at the minimum we need to get ticket relations working which are at >>> least two weeks away. We need at least one 0.x release with working >>> relations before proceeding to 1.0. >> IMO , the fact that we are distributing changes that make the new core >> and BH plugins substantially different from what we've been releasing >> until now has significant relevance as compared to the fact that some >> features have to be improved in BH relations , core and other plugins >> . The next version will not be an straightforward continuation of >> previous work but a major DB, and API upgrade . The version number >> (i.e. 1.0) will make that fact obvious to users whereas alpha , beta , >> rc , ... will highlight that we are still working towards 1.0-stable >> and are looking for further feedback , especially concerning plugin >> compatibility after MP upgrades . > > How long do you propose to publish release candidates that are not > actually release candidates because we know functional changes are still > on the drawing board? > > If you're worried about the "message to users" then by all means make > the /next/ release 1.0 instead of 0.6, and let's make what I'd consider > 1.0 be 2.0 instead. That'll bring the confusion right out in the open. :) > > The meaning of 0.x is fairly unambiguous -- it implies possibly massive > changes in schema and API between .x and .x+1. So let's not talk about > confusing users, of which we only currently have early adopters who know > how to deal with that, and let's instead /not/ confuse users and call a > release 1.0 only when we're sure that we have all the schema, API, > functional and UI bits polished to 90%. Which the proposed 0.6 > definitely isn't going to be, neither will anything that can be released > by the end of this month, which we all know very well. > > What's this rush with 1.0 anyway? Is someone working towards a schedule > that was not discussed on this list? > > -- Brane
No rush, I just asked what others thought about it. I'm personally working towards two schedules I haven't explicitly stated here before: A) 1.0 releases are signals, which mean much of what Brane said. Considering we all agree that we've nearly achieved our initial goals, my question was whether we could set a date range for achieving this. I believe it will help us preventing feature creep and other harmful delays. B) We're hopefully getting Google Summer of Code students soon and I hope that we can make it easier for them to start by having the relatively stable base that 1.0 implies. What sits in trunk without being released is of no value to those that just download Bloodhound releases - and that's our best source of future contributors. Cheers, Joe > > -- > Branko Čibej > Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com >
