Bernd Fondermann schrieb:
But we are
On 9/27/06, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joachim Draeger schrieb:
> Am Dienstag, den 26.09.2006, 16:45 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
>
>
>>> to simplify the website build and to include 2.2.0 and 2.3.0 docs
>>>
>> We can update our web site indepedendently of the release cycle
for the
>> product.
>>
>
> But it would be very, very good to have the website in the best
possible
> condition when we release. (Of course we are software developers
and not
> web-designers (but not to forget to say that it looks quite good at
the
> moment))
> In the time-frame, when the release gets announced I hope for some
> bigger interest. IMO, the chance is good to get mentioned in the
related
> new tickers. The first impression potential new users get is very
> important.
> I know, I act the same: Read an interesting article, klick the link to
> the project website and decide whether it's worth to download and give
> it a chance.
>
> Joachim
I agree. We should not release until the website is ready. Btw, i don't
think this will block us, because Stefano finished almost..
As I see it we are not only having changes to the documentation but to
the code base as well, which leads us to RC4. RC4 could have been
RC1... for 2.3.1.
We will always have bugs, even known bugs. So this should not be the
_only_ criteria for not releasing. It has to be weighted against the
nasty old bugs we have in the current stable release and if our user
base would be better off with the new ones instead of the old ones.
;-)
The fixes we are doing now (docs int 2.3-branch, serial nos, mime
conversion disabling) are all neccessary, but should they hold the
release? Remember, we could publish a "known problems" documentation,
too.
Bernd
Well im not feel good to release with known bugs.. So im -0 to release
without fixes.
Bye
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
