David Waite <mass@akuma.org> writes:
> There might be a misunderstanding here - but it sounds like what
> subversion refers to as a 'beta', most other projects refer to as a
> 'release candidate'. Are there release candidate(s) planned in
> addition to beta(s)?
Yes, I think there's a terminology mismatch. I'm using "Beta" and
"release candidate" synonymously.
> If we get fifty bugs filed on the first release candidate, I can see
> the point of focusing all the development community on fixing them. I
> also would be worried about major flaws in the 1.0 release. If we get
> five, there is no reason to hold up post 1.0 development - the people
> who are focused on 1.0 are more than capable of reacting to these bugs
> as they come in. It is also possible that even this subset of people
> would be idle while waiting for bugs to come in, and could focus on
> post-1.0 features.
>
> My question is - how unstable do you think subversion is? Do you think
> a 1.0 release is going to be limited by the speed bugs can be closed,
> or by the amount of time it takes for the testers attracted by the
> beta and release candidates to fully test the product?
Tell you what: let's see how it goes. We'll start by just putting
trunk into slush mode. If it turns out that there are a lot of bugs,
we can reconsider and move the release work to a branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 3 21:16:23 2003