Sorry. I definitely could've been clearer on Question #2. I believe we'll only be at "demoware" quality by ApacheCon (0.3.z).
And also I think we'll want another release when we feel we've finished the bulk of our feature work for V1 (0.4.z) and yet another release (0.5.z) when on our drive to beta with an agreed upon quality bar. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Griffith Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:53 PM To: Beehive Developers Subject: RE: [Proposal] Pre-V1 release for ApacheCon? > -----Original Message----- > From: Heather Stephens > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 8:45 PM > To: Beehive Developers > Subject: [Proposal] Pre-V1 release for ApacheCon? > > Question 1 --> Should we shoot to do a pre-V1 release of > Beehive for ApacheCon? (NOTE: We would also need Incubator > PMC approval for this of course.) YES! > > > Question 2 --> In the spirit of the X.y.z naming convention > and assuming we will do a few of these before we cut V 1.0.z > with a 0.5.z beta-quality release, shall we name an ApacheCon > release as version 0.3.z? Yes. .1 was the initial thing, we've done more than that up to now, .4 implies were getting close to .5. :) What will Apache-Con be? .5? > > > Question 3 --> Proposal on Goals/Non-goals > ============== > Goals > ============== > *Practice the release process so we can > begin to work out the kinks > *Binary distribution available > *"Demoable" for ApacheCon sessions > *Enough supporting > materials (sample applications, feature samples, > documentation, tutorials, etc.) to generate interest in > Beehive, begin to build a more active user community and get > useful on the current feature set. > > ============== > Non-goals > ============== > *Feature complete > *APIs locked > *Beta-quality > *Guarantee of backwards compat We should make our non-goals as explicit in our release as our goals. :) cheers mbg > > >
