On 08.05.2013 06:49, Olemis Lang wrote: > On 5/7/13, 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? >> > What are the functional changes ? BH relations ? If so , the way I see > it using all plugins except that one will result in a working system .
But so will using plain vanilla Trac. What's your point? -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
