if we are not planning to add new features and just bugfixes then I
understand it's a beta
On 2/24/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 24 Feb 07, at 1:05 PM 24 Feb 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> +1 for a beta, if everything it's cool let's go for 1.1 and push to
-1 for beta
This version has so many changes it cannot be called a beta until it
has been tried en masse. It is most certainly an alpha.
Jason.
> 1.1.1 whatever else that needs to be fixed
>
> On 2/23/07, Jesse McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was talking to trygve a bit on irc and it dovetailed nicely with
>> some plans I had talked about late last year in regard to
>> continuum...I am just about a month late is all. We thought we ought
>> to take a poll on here about continuum and see what folks thought.
>> This is not a vote, its just a poll and perhaps a discussion starter
>> on short to mid term plans with continuum. I just know it bothers me
>> a bit everytime someone pops on IRC and asks questions about
>> continuum
>> 1.0.3...which is quite aged atm with so many of the bugs on it
>> resolved on the trunk.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Question: Should we take all the work that has been done on
>> continuum
>> in the last year+ and get it pushed out as an Alpha1 or a Milestone1
>> or some suitable equivalent?
>>
>> [+1/0/-1]
>>
>>
>> jesse
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> jesse mcconnell
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
> --
> I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> -- The Princess Bride
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
