[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Proposal: feature freeze (Beta) while stabilizing 1.0.

From: Daniel L. Rall <dlr_at_finemaltcoding.com>
Date: 2003-10-04 00:14:24 CEST

kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> 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 Sat Oct 4 00:15:13 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.