Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
> In netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey the people heard Asa Dotzler say
> these wise words:
>
>
>>>IMHO, 1.0 quality = all implemented features working to an acceptably
>>>high standard, and released as a finished product.
>>>
>>
>>This kind of comment does nothing to help the discussion. This thread
>>is about defining the "acceptably high standard". Saying 1.0 needs to
>>meet the standard we've defined for 1.0 is a little silly, no?
>>
>
> The acceptable standard is - "free of known bugs"!
If you have ever seen the bugzilla database, and also seen it's
thousands and again thousands of bugs, you'll understand that it's an
impossibility to fix all known bugs which such a large application as
Mozilla.
> Make Mozilla free of known bugs, then - and only then - add new features
> intended for a new release!
>
> Intil the code is free of known bugs the project won't can't be considered
> completed.
>
> This is, to me, quite logical. Work on a product's faults before creating a
> new version of the product with additional features and more faults.
>
It's not all that easy as you think. We have, what, 16,000 "faults"
(many of them being RFEs and duplicates, I'm sure though). Are you
serious when you think we'll be able to fix them all now a few months
(?) before the Mozilla 1.0 release?
Don't be unrealistic.
>
>
>
>>"fixing bugs that had hitherto escaped detection" really? What about
>>the 16,000 bugs that had already been detected? 1.0.1 is either going
>>to be a bugfix tag on the 1.0 branch or it's going to be the next
>>milestone on the trunk probably about 5 weeks after the 1.0 branch was
>>cut and containing whichever fixes developers thought important to
>>making the codebase better.
>>
>
> Err...
>
> 1.0.x represents an alteration to the 1.0 branch.
>
> Once Mozilla has been perfected to 1.0 status the only movement from there
> on the trunk, IMHO, is progress towards releasing the 2.0 product - as the
> 1.0 project will then be complete - finished - goal achieved.
>
> Have we considered what we want Mozilla 2.0 to be like?
>
Are you kidding? This thread is all about defining the 1.0 ones.
>
>>Also, mozilla.org has no plans to make an
>>"official release of a finished product".
>>
>
> Really???
>
> Are you not every intending to release a product that can be considered in
> any way complete?
>
> If so, then what on earth are you bothering to do anything at all with
> Mozilla if you don't think your work will ever lead to a completed project?
>
Mozilla will always continue to evolve and improve. Bugs will get fixed,
features will get implemented. Over time we will have more organization
and the project itself will continue to evolve.
There won't a point in time where we stop developing and promptly say
"Well, we're finished. Let's go home."
--
H�kan Waara
