On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 10:40:54PM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote: > At 10.49 21/10/02 -0700, you wrote: > > >On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 10:04:59AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote: > >> Consider this; when all agree that the objective is to release > >> Freenet to the general public, you seriously said that a > >> well-behaving windows installer was unimportant for the relase. > > > >No, I said that the Windows installer shouldn't delay the release, and=20 > >that it would be absolutely ridiculous if it did > > It is exactly what I undestood; in your opinion is ridicolous wait > for the wininstaller, in my opinion is ridicolous announce 0.5 > without it to anticipate the release few days. I'm not convinced that we should release without the Windows installer. > > It is a matter of end users consideration, as one years ago for > the 0.3 drop. > > Anyway, this problem now is history, the installer works great > and we all need to plan for the future, not discuss the past. Cool. > > I'm waiting for wednesday ! > > >> When trying to have a general agreement on the (revolutionary) > >> fact to have a release date for Freenet, you seriusly decided for an > >> overall scheduling of 5 days for the whole thing. > > > >No, actually I pointed out the need for a release date, and - having > >checked with Matthew Toseland first, suggested Wednesday. Since then,=20 > >Oskar and Matthew discovered some significant bugs which had to be=20 > >fixed, so we agreed on next Monday instead. > > > >Please don't be so presumptuously critical when you don't know all the > >facts. > > For sure I'm critical, but I don't think to be presumptuous; I have > access to maillist & freesites, and obviously those are all the info > on which I can base my understanding. > > Five days to a release are IMVVVHO, a really, really too short timeframe > for the release of any code, not only for a complex one like Freenet. If the code is stable for that time, and no critical bugs are found, then it is quite reasonable. > > In a cooperative environment like our, driving changing > direction with sharp turns is by far not the best option. Hmm. What does this mean? We have not put in any really huge changes recently except those which were vital. > > I can understand and approve the need for a quick release, > non for a as-quick-as-we-can one. Few days more after > one and half year of waiting are unimportant; the risk of > miss the general public releasing a code that 90% of people > cannot use is by far worst. Certainly. Hence the delay from Wednesday to Monday. But I think it will be enough. > > Borrowing from Lucas, "Don't underestimate the power of > a big user base" > > I speak for myself, but there is no intention to discuss > your leadership, just the correctness of some practical > decision, that can be wrong as happen to all us. > > Here in Italy we say something that translated sound like > "The path that goes to hell is made of good intentions" "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is the preferred english translation. > > Don't be so nervous. We all works together. > > Have a good day. Marco > > > -- > + il Progetto Freenet - segui il coniglio bianco + > * the Freenet Project - follow the white rabbit * > * Marco A. Calamari marcoc at dada.it www.marcoc.it * > * PGP RSA: ED84 3839 6C4D 3FFE 389F 209E 3128 5698 * > + DSS/DH: 8F3E 5BAE 906F B416 9242 1C10 8661 24A9 BFCE 822B + >
-- Matthew Toseland toad at amphibian.dyndns.org amphibian at users.sourceforge.net Freenet/Coldstore open source hacker. Employed full time by Freenet Project Inc. from 11/9/02 to 11/11/02. http://freenetproject.org/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021021/74d396b5/attachment.pgp>
