Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
> Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> > Regardless of the rest of this discussion, I think it is time to set a
> > definite date on 1.0. I believe we're far enough feature-wise, and quite
> > close to the required stability.
>
> With all due respect to you, Perry, and Solo Turn, I think you're
> wrong. We are not near the required stability. We have the features,
> but there are still just too many serious bugs -- we've got seg faults
> coming in with some regularity, for example.
That's actually part of what I'm getting at. The reason I need a
"release", even a pre-1.0 release, is to know that the code in
question is free of serious bugs. I do not need stability of
interface, but I do need freedom from bugs.
Given that, I can start to use Subversion in real projects, and I
think that's good for Subversion. More users means more developers,
more ideas, and frankly more experience on which to learn how people
interact with the software.
> We already have tons of people willing to start using Subversion right
> now, as it is, and more arriving every day. The only reason to call
> it "1.0" is to attract the mainstream users who want high reliability
> and no suprises -- and if we're honest with ourselves, we need to
> admit that Subversion is simply not ready for them yet.
As I said, I'm happy with something not called "1.0" but which is an
official release that is considered free of major bugs. That might not
be suitable for everyone, but it will be suitable for many of us and
those bugs need to be nuked anyway.
I certainly don't want to see something called a "release" with known
bad bugs. On the other hand, I suspect parts of what are delaying 1.0
are not bugs but features...
--
Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 2 22:35:48 2003