___/ On Sat 18 Nov 2006 21:33:16 GMT, [ Peter Westwood ] wrote : \___
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:53:11 -0800, Ryan Boren <ryan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let's branch 2.1. We're trying to drive 2.1 to an RC worthy state.
Meanwhile, there is some new development in the pipe that shouldn't go
into 2.1 but needs a home in SVN. That can go into trunk once the 2.1
branch is created. Sound good?
Can be done... but with more than 300 tickets open for 2.1 there is
time and resources for new stuff for furture versione to play with?
Putting 2.1 on branch will make world waiting for 2.1 be realesed in a
month or so.. is this the planned timeline?
Branching and finishing 2.1 sounds like a good idea.
We do need to target a release soon.
We may not have enough time left for a pre-christmas release - afterall
we don't want a christmas release like last time ;-)
Maybe we should aim for a date mid Janurary?
My voice won't count much, but it's probably better to make it
progress-driven (e.g. testing/feedback, number of bugs pending) rather
than deadline-driven. Promises lead to pressure and disappointment,
which in turn leads to poor(er) and sloppy(ier) code. I can vividly
remember last year (2.0). Matt decided to release within a few days of
notice and the outcome wasn't too pleasant. I was in the forums over
Christmas and there were many different bugs in the code. It wasn't
truly ready for 'prime time' and its quality was in par with a beta
rather than an RC or 'stable'. The frustrating experience left me to
ditching the forums (among other factors).
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://othellomaster.com >> GPL-licensed 3-D Othello
http://iuron.com >> proposing an Open Source, non-profit search engine
Open Source journalism contributer @ http://newassignment.net