--On 9/11/01 10:11 -0500 Dom Lachowicz wrote: > 0.9.99 (release candidate 1): December 28 > 1.0: January 7, 2002 > > Remember that 1.0 is neither the end nor the beginning, but an important > milestone in our product's development and general public perception.
Bearing that in mind, I suggest we plan for more than one release candidate. We want to be very sure that there are no embarrassing bugs in any of the main versions, and that will take some time, since we have a limited number of people doing the testing. There's going to be a significant backlash over the absence of tables anyway; any other problems will simply compound the issue. (Note, I'm certainly not saying that we should delay the release for tables. But most of the people who see 1.0 will not have seem the discussions of why tables are difficult and why it is better to postpone them.) And Rui said: > I would suggest that we just make a 0.9.99 branch, which will lead to > 1.0, and leave the normal tree for trying new stuff for the 1.1.x cycle, > which should lead us to a 1.2.0 version. I suggest we don't branch until 1.0 is out, so that the developers can't do new features while they're supposed to be squashing bugs. Otherwise, I like Rui's suggestion, especially the part about merging bug fixes back into 1.0.x. David Chart
