On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
> "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 am not suggesting we try to create an actual schedule, but is this
roughly what you are thinking?
Of course there would be an alpha2 and/or beta2 etc. as deemed
necessary. But basically, this is doing a new "release" every two
weeks until we hit rc1 and then it slows down to two three week
We could obviously try to make a schedule if we wanted to, but I am
mainly just trying to be clear about what people are thinking and
hinting at for an unofficial schedule.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-20 18:51:28 CET