I think it is important to have names for two key points in the
lifecycle of the project:
- Getting people inside of OSAF to use the product
- Getting people outside of OSAF to use the product
These phases are important for setting goals, lining up the roadmap, and
making tough choices to hit the goals. I don't think of these as
external "marketing" terms -- to be honest I am at the moment way more
concerned with us as a team having the same shared focus and goals.
It is not important to me that the terms be embedded in the milestone
numbering. It is important to me that we use these terms consistently
when triaging bugs, making decisions about features, etc.
I hear from Ted and Phillip that "Alpha" and "Beta" are confusing terms
for these concepts. Phillip has suggested a few constructive
alternatives for "Beta".
A proposal, which I admint I'm not super happy with:
- "Dogfood" (used inside OSAF)
- "Preview" (used outside OSAF)
For Chandler desktop, this would mean that 0.7 is the "preview" release
that we are shooting for. Similarly, Cosmo features would need to hit
"dogfood" and then "preview" stages, and releases would be noted and
discussed accordingly. Perhaps both Cosmo and Chandler could use the "m"
notation for milestones between releases?
Alternatives? Constructive proposals?
Cheers,
Katie
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 05:07 PM 8/29/2006 -0700, Ted Leung wrote:
On Aug 29, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
Hmmm. Ok, so Ted has been making this same argument.
The term is less important to me than the concept. Of the terms you
suggested Phillip, "Preview" sounds most appealing.
Thoughts?
If we have to have a label, then I would be fine with Preview, but
I'm not convinced that we need to attach the label directly to the
release. We can talk about a Preview release in announcements and
blog posts, but that's different from having artifacts labeled
something like Chandler_iosx_0.7Preview.dmg.
Right, I should've been more explicit that this is what I meant.
"Preview" and the like would be *marketing* labels, not technical ones.
The version number used on development artifacts should be just plain
old "0.7" for the final release of 0.7.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
