"Mark Phippard" <markphip_at_gmail.com> writes:
> Likewise, while this is a big release and might need a longer soak
> period than other releases, it has also received an unprecedented
> amount of community attention throughout the process. I think there
> is a lot of reason to think the bulk of the features have had someone
> try to use them, and the overall process has undergone a lot of
> vetting by the community.
>
> I'd rather see us push ourselves and decide to take extra time for a
> reason, than build in a bunch of extra time and then still take even
> more time later.
>
> In the end this is all semantics. We can go from an alpha1 to an RC1
> if that is where the software is, and we can go from an alpha1 to an
> alpha2 if needed. I just want to keep the process moving as best we
> can.
I understand what you're getting at, but it's egg on our face
(translation: more wariness on the part of early adopters) if
something called "rc1" turns out to have a big bug. Better to call it
"alpha", let it out there for a week or two, and then when there are
no monsters, go to "beta" and then "rc1".
I don't think the total amount of time will change, though, and agree
we should move the process along as fast as we can.
I guess I'm just repeating what Justin said.
(I'll follow up to Hyrum's mail now.)
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-19 06:02:11 CET