Garrett Rooney wrote: > On 6/20/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'd say the goals for M1 are pretty simple... > >> produce a stable, reasonably functional impl for folks to start working >> with. Where "reasonbly functional" means it implements the RFC4287 with >> no obvious gaps. > > That makes sense to me, although one question to think about here is > how stable the parser/object model API will be at this point. >
stable == the svn will be tagged at a specific point. >> Complete Atom Publishing support would not be a goal for M1. > > Agreed, that seems reasonable to hold off for subsequent milestones. > >> Having Java5 and JDK142 support would be a goal. > > I'm less concerned with this personally, but if someone wants to pick > up the work, that's fine with me. > Yep, working on it. >> Decent docs and samples would be a goal. > > Agreed. > >> As would self-contained test case (no reliance on externally hosted >> resources). > > Agreed. > > Also, can we find something other than "M1" to call this? I'm not a > huge fan of the practice of using a series of "milestone" releases > leading up to 1.0, it implies that there aren't any milestone releases > after 1.0. How about just calling this a 0.1.0 release? > +1. 0.1.0 works for me. > -garrett > - James
