Re: svn commit: r8155 - branches/1.0-stabilization

> Modified:
> branches/1.0-stabilization/STATUS
> Log:
> Holy crap... there are a lot of suggestions for the 1.0 branch. How can
> this be called "stabilization" ?!!?!

Which leads to the conclusion that the Subversion community is in any (or a
combination) of the situations below:

1) The community does not know how to stabilize and get to 1.0
2) Subversion is 1.0-feature complete, but not quite ready for an API freeze
in the current API state
3) There is uncertainty about the state of the releases after 1.0 and people
are trying to squeeze in what they think is needed in months to come.

Personally I don't believe there's a problem with (1), but I do think what
you see comes from both (2) and (3).

There has been a lot of work done to get 1.0-completeness, but next to no
discussion about the readyness for the API as the final 1.0 version. Ofcourse
nobody has had time to discuss that as everybody was working towards the
complete function set.

On top of that there still has been no conlusion to the Post-1.0 release
cycle leading to possibly different ideas of when a next function update will
see light. This might influence people to push functionality for 1.0...

On a side note: I don't find it strange that the date-parser is getting
attention just now. It is exactly what point (2) is about. The current situation
has worked, but is it a state we want to support forever? That's the question
which has come up now that we are leading upto 1.0.

bye,

Erik.

-- 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org