Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > > maybe a compromise would be to leave the packages in slink, make sure > > the Description: field highlights their alpha status, and automatically > > close all non-packaging bugs (and forward them upstream if it makes > > sense to do so). > > > > I hope this is what Jim decides to do... we really want people to try out > the Gnome software, even though it's alpha. Red Hat ships it for that > reason... bug reports can go upstream, or just be ignored if they've > already been fixed in more recent Gnome versions or Jim doesn't have > time...
I was just asking people's opinions as I was unsure what the criteria for putting things into "stable" was. Most people seem to be in favour of putting Gnome into stable, mostly for marketability reasons, so I guess I'm OK with that. However, I don't want to make the stable release look bad - so I think I'll do a bit more work on the packages to make them a bit more newbie-friendly. > If it's helpful, in the future Gnome could have a GUI splashscreen that > says ALPHA in big red letters. ;-) I think we need something like that. There are quite a few Gnome programs that are fairly stable, and are going to maintain compatibility (for file formats, and such) going forward. On the other hand, I'm sure lots of Gnome programs are going to be breaking forward-compatibility, as they are still under heavy development. We'll probably still get people using stable who will see "alpha", ignore it, and get burnt. If that's OK with everybody, I don't see a problem with Gnome in stable. > Alpha releases could even expire after 90 days or something... boy, > would we get flamed for that. ;-) That's an awful idea. :-) Cheers, - Jim
