On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
What's wrong w/ milestone naming conventions?
I'm not a fan.
1.0-M1, 1.0-M2, 1.0-M3...
is really misleading, IMO, as they give a sense of it being ready
to go
1.0....
I'd prefer to use a stable (i.e., not automatically updated snapshot)
version to work with.
So would we. Just something would be better than nothing.
I see.
Also I really like the milestone numbering and
don't think it implies being ready. It is just a milestone on a
journey.
Each to his own. I think that the version number should be a
hint. If
yoko is that mature that calling it 1.0 is a good idea, that's
great. I
know that with Geronimo, we made the mistake of calling the basic
kernel
"1.0-M1", which really confused people since it was only a display of
the architectural ideas, and not a 1.0 candidate.
For those of you that don't know, Geir and I have always disagreed on
this. He thinks a milestone is means it is close, I think interpret
a milestone as a checkpoint (like the milestone in a workflow or M$
project file). Anyway there is no reason to rehash this.
-dain
