Re: svn 1.0 in 2006 or now?

solo turn <soloturn99@yahoo.com> writes:

> - you seem to be in the same situation as jim blandy,
> brilliant and blind for mainstream users needs
> and expectations

Karl's point is that we're trying to *avoid* what happened to Jim.
We're defining "blind to users' expectations" as "unaware of bugs that
will trip them up". You seem to define the same phrase as "unaware
that users desperately need the 1.0 label."

> (add -R choking for existing files/dirs for example,
> ... every newcomer falls over that)

Sorry, can you explain this? What issue is this?

> and karl is trying to avoid jim's beta experience ...
> but thats why "beta" is there, to FIND THESE BUGS.
> and it does NOT matter if there is a few bugs you
> know about.

Actually, no, we've defined "beta" as "no known bugs". This is a
conservative release management strategy, and we need to be
conservative, because we're a version control system.

> not going beta is bad for everybody. new features can't be
> added (as we soon have 1.0 ... in 2004), mainstream users
> needing a time schedule getting fed up (what are these
> svn guys doing, they say august, but maybe they forgot
> the year? is that the new opensource?).

I feel like this is going in circles. You seem to repeatedly point
out all the harms that come from delaying labels. Our position is
that much *more* harm will come by labelling things too early.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 3 18:50:21 2003