J.Pietschmann schrieb:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I don't know of any such convention. I've seen various variants: rc,
beta, previews etc. I think we're free to choose.
I'd rather go for "alpha". "rc" means "release candidate", meaning
Yes 0.90-alpha sounds like version number
Christian
On 26.07.2005 21:51:03 Simon Pepping wrote:
> I think that the first production release should be on parity with
> 0.20.5, unless we can advertise that the gains in new features
> outweigh the loss of features. The very first release does not have to
> satisfy that criterion, so we can do that soo
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I don't know of any such convention. I've seen various variants: rc,
beta, previews etc. I think we're free to choose.
I'd rather go for "alpha". "rc" means "release candidate", meaning
features and APIs are stable, and I don't think HEAD is there already.
Other than tha
On 26.07.2005 17:22:28 The Web Maestro wrote:
> Before we actually move to make this release, I'd like to understand
> the discrepancies between 0.20.5 and the proposed 0.9rc1 release of
> TRUNK a bit better.
Yes, that's an important point.
> I was under the impression that the first TRUNK
>
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 08:22:28AM -0700, The Web Maestro wrote:
> The thought of having a release from the TRUNK branch is very exciting.
> I agree that releasing as 0.9rc1 (or 0.9b1, since we may not yet be at
> release candidate stage or 0.9xx1) makes sense, and tells the world
> we've moved
The thought of having a release from the TRUNK branch is very exciting.
I agree that releasing as 0.9rc1 (or 0.9b1, since we may not yet be at
release candidate stage or 0.9xx1) makes sense, and tells the world
we've moved past the 0.20.5 stage, which our project and community
desperately needs
I don't know of any such convention. I've seen various variants: rc,
beta, previews etc. I think we're free to choose.
Starting with a couple of preview releases would IMO be good to inform
people that the release is not supposed to be used in production, yet. A
release candidate is more like a pr
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Another thing, that I'd like to bring up. We're approaching a state
where FOP Trunk code is usable for more serious use cases. The important
FOs are all implemented. In the past, we talked about making 1.0 meet
XSL 1.0 Basic Conformance. I believe to do that would be bad f
Another thing, that I'd like to bring up. We're approaching a state
where FOP Trunk code is usable for more serious use cases. The important
FOs are all implemented. In the past, we talked about making 1.0 meet
XSL 1.0 Basic Conformance. I believe to do that would be bad for the
project in its curr
