Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> writes:
> Rev ctl is f'ing important. Please help us all take the time to do
> it right. Who, aside from ego investment, gives a crap about "svn 1.0
> in three months"? And, anyway, isn't it the ultimate ego stroke to
> have svn 1.0 that is Clearly Right?
I'll respond to this, since others might be interested too.
The issue isn't the version number itself, of course, but the
stabilization of the code -- testing and fixing bugs rather than
adding new features -- and the designation of a well-tested release
after that process. We need that stabilization point in order to
satisfy potential users (and ourselves) that it's safe to replace CVS
installations with Subversion now.
Naturally, that point will be labeled "1.0", since that's what people
interpret "1.0" to mean.
At a certain stage, a project must stop trying to Be Everything To
Everyone, and focus on the correctness of what it already does. A
project that doesn't do this usually ends up in permanent Alpha and is
gradually abandoned as people realize that it will never stabilize,
even temporarily.
The Internet is littered with failed projects. Subversion will not be
one of them, in part because we know when to stop adding scaffolding
and start filling in the building, including unsexy things like making
sure the plumbing works.
I'm sorry if you think our current schedule is a mistake. But, I'm
equally confident you're wrong.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 16 16:30:31 2002