I'm not a committer, but I heartily agree with the comments by gstein about
the importance of naming Subversion 1.0 soon. It would help substantially
in advocating the use of Subversion where I am now. In fact, the quicker
you come out with a 1.1, the better, to mollify those "We never use 1.0
software" people.
Anyone intimately involved with Subversion knows its just a matter of
semantics. But, when someone turns 18, they're only a few minutes older
than they were when they were 17. Yet all of a sudden they can drink
legally in some states. Subversion has been a responsible underage drinker
for a while now, so we might as well say it's 18. And the sooner we say
it's 21, the sooner it can drink legally in all states.
Patrick Rusk
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:07 AM
To: Greg Hudson
Cc: dev@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: stabilization & number of changes
While I believe having a great API is nice, I don't see it as affecting
the users of the software. And it is the users who are our primary
audience. I happen to believe that those users would rather have 1.0 in
hand next month, than a clean-API-1.0 in April. (of course, it probably
wouldn't take that long, but if we *just* sat around cleaning the API...
then yah. it very well could)
Just this last weekend, some developers I spoke with said, "we aren't
moving because it isn't 1.0". I hear that *all* the time. But the fact of
the matter is that SVN is more than ready for users, but they don't
believe me when I tell them that. And it is all because of that stupid
label called a version number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 7 15:42:33 2004