Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:32:22 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Erik Hofman wrote: Martin Spott wrote: RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to my [...] supporters for this idea./RANT Guess why the next release is 0.9.9 and not 1.0 and why 1.0 is released early next year? ...some time after 0.9.10, 0.9.11, 0.9.12, 0.9.13... Yep, but sipmly _delaying_ the next release doesn't cure anything. This only makes sense if the developers agree on a feature freeze and announce a bugfix-only phase. ..or if it can be enforced somehow. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
Yep, but sipmly _delaying_ the next release doesn't cure anything. This only makes sense if the developers agree on a feature freeze and announce a bugfix-only phase. ..or if it can be enforced somehow. ;o) or that a separate branch is created for the feature freeze while the development continues at the trunk, with only hand-picked patches getting into the release branch... ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:24:21 +0200 (IST), Vassilii wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yep, but sipmly _delaying_ the next release doesn't cure anything. This only makes sense if the developers agree on a feature freeze and announce a bugfix-only phase. ..or if it can be enforced somehow. ;o) or that a separate branch is created for the feature freeze while the development continues at the trunk, with only hand-picked patches getting into the release branch... ...with some release dictator growling Test this! ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
Vivian Meazza wrote: I only mention this because it indicates that the quality of our testing might not be quite as good as it should be as we move rapidly towards 1.0 RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to my observation very little changed in the meantime. The biggest success was to install a consensus that the pre-release phase should last at least two weeks. To my opinon two _months_ would be appropriate for such a complex piece of software that runs on so many different platforms and is maintained by such a small developer base. Unfortunately I didn't manage to crowd a significant number of supporters for this idea./RANT Actually there were times when I got on everyones nerves by continuously pointing at bugs or inconsistencies that I was unable to fix myself. Finally I realized that only reporting or documenting bugs (whereas the latter is a _really_ time-consuming task !!) without providing a fix was not that much welcome and I decided to engage with my own sub-projects that I am capable of running without external help. Regards, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
Martin Spott wrote: RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to my observation very little changed in the meantime. The biggest success was to install a consensus that the pre-release phase should last at least two weeks. To my opinon two _months_ would be appropriate for such a complex piece of software that runs on so many different platforms and is maintained by such a small developer base. Unfortunately I didn't manage to crowd a significant number of supporters for this idea./RANT Guess why the next release is 0.9.9 and not 1.0 and why 1.0 is released early next year? Actually there were times when I got on everyones nerves by continuously pointing at bugs or inconsistencies that I was unable to fix myself. Finally I realized that only reporting or documenting bugs (whereas the latter is a _really_ time-consuming task !!) without providing a fix was not that much welcome and I decided to engage with my own sub-projects that I am capable of running without external help. Well, pointing to bugs might be useful when there are enough developers to fix them. It is just recently that we have enough developers who are willing to fix bugs. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
Erik Hofman wrote: Martin Spott wrote: RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to my [...] supporters for this idea./RANT Guess why the next release is 0.9.9 and not 1.0 and why 1.0 is released early next year? Yep, but sipmly _delaying_ the next release doesn't cure anything. This only makes sense if the developers agree on a feature freeze and announce a bugfix-only phase. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
Martin Spott wrote: RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to my observation very little changed in the meantime. The biggest success was to install a consensus that the pre-release phase should last at least two weeks. To my opinon two _months_ would be appropriate for such a complex piece of software that runs on so many different platforms and is maintained by such a small developer base. Unfortunately I didn't manage to crowd a significant number of supporters for this idea./RANT Actually there were times when I got on everyones nerves by continuously pointing at bugs or inconsistencies that I was unable to fix myself. Finally I realized that only reporting or documenting bugs (whereas the latter is a _really_ time-consuming task !!) without providing a fix was not that much welcome and I decided to engage with my own sub-projects that I am capable of running without external help. Martin, I'm not disagreeing with you, but would like to point out that there exists a perfect world with infinite time and infinite energy. But then there exists my world. When I get a window of opportunity I need to take it or we may not get a release for another year ... Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
--- Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm clever enough to realize that my idea of quality control is not necessary the best one for FG ;-)) I simply want to point out that the project is very well advised to have better quality control than it had for the past years. I have one or two ideas how this could be achieved, I'm convinced that others have other and probably better ideas and I'd like to see an open discussion on this. OK, here's my tuppence. I'd be much more likely to test a pre-release if it was available as a binary. While I (eventually) managed to get FG CVS to compile under cygwin, many new or non-dev users will be using the windows/Linux binaries directly, so it makes sense to test them and pick up the OS-specific issues, of which there are probably quite a few. Of course, creating a full windows install is presumably a lot of work and not practical for 0.9.9. For the big v1.0, which presumably is going to be quite high visibility as an OSS project going to a full release, I think it is something we should seriously look at doing. Having just finished a release cycle in my day job, you can imagine how enthusiastic I am about doing more testing ;), but I'll definitely try. -Stuart ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
Curt, One follow-up question. Are we still following the convention of odd-numbered releases being dev and even being stable. I ask as the Getting Start Guide still thinks so, and I'll correct it if it is wrong. -Stuart ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
Buchanan, Stuart wrote: Curt, One follow-up question. Are we still following the convention of odd-numbered releases being dev and even being stable. I ask as the Getting Start Guide still thinks so, and I'll correct it if it is wrong. We tried that. 'Officially' 0.8.0 is the current stable release and 0.9.8 (0.9.9 pending) is the newest dev release. However, v0.8.0 was almost entirely ignored by almost everyone. We might have had a couple people running it for a short time. So I think you could remove that reference from the user guide. Oh, and in reference to your previous email. I believe there will be a windows binary made available for v0.9.9 (as well as for as many other platforms as possible.) I just haven't pushed it for the v0.9.9-prereleases. Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
Buchanan, Stuart wrote: One follow-up question. Are we still following the convention of odd-numbered releases being dev and even being stable. I ask as the Getting Start Guide still thinks so, and I'll correct it if it is wrong. This clause should be removed - I remember it's in there, but currently I don't find it ah, there it is Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
As some of you may have noticed, I completed a prerelease of FlightGear-0.9.9(pre1) and SimGear-0.3.9(pre1). I haven't heard any complaints about the prerelease, so I am planning to do a pre2 release this week. If all goes well and we have no major show stoppers, I would like to start working on the official v0.9.9 release next week and have it out by the end of next week (optimistically.) I'm trying to fit this into my own 'spare' time schedule so I may not be able to accomidate everyone's needs and wishes. But, there is always the next release if we miss something this time around. We haven't officially decided, but right now we are talking about doing a v1.0 release after the dust has settled on 0.9.9. That would likely happen sometime early 2006 after the holidays. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
RE: [Flightgear-devel] Pending v0.9.9 release
Curtis L. Olson writes We haven't officially decided, but right now we are talking about doing a v1.0 release after the dust has settled on 0.9.9. That would likely happen sometime early 2006 after the holidays. This sounds good I have a 737 on the go but it won't be finished in a week.I am hoping for sometime in January 2006 Regards, Curt. Cheers Innis ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
