I'd agree. The first release should be a mechanism to get feedback from a wider audience that doesn't want to build from CVS. Heck, I've worked on the build, but I've barely tried out the API yet. And probably won't have a chance to finish my "playing with it" phase for a month...
Another requirements for a release: a bug-tracking system must be available & setup (categories/modules/versions defined, etc.) to receive & track the feedback... -Stephen On 6/20/06, Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote: > On 6/20/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> 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. > > Well, obviously, any release gets tagged at a specific point, what I'm > getting at is are we going to say "these APIs will only evolve in a > backwards compatible manner going forward", or is this a pre-1.0 > liable to change, use at your own risk kind of release. I'd rather this be a pre-1.0. We need more feedback from the community and road tests for the API. -Elias
-- Stephen Duncan Jr www.stephenduncanjr.com
