Those seem like pretty substantial improvements and what with package maintainers asking for some kind of clarity in the situation I think this would be an excellent time to take 'er out of beta.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Michael Petch <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm of the opinion that given the stability of the current builds on > Unix and Windows platforms, and what appears as a measurable increase in > strength and better performance on 3ply (Depreli studies suggest it), > that we should consider ourselves at 1.0 . If we aren't at 1.0 yet, then > we probably will never have a reason to be. > > We have a stable product, yes it has some known bugs, but in general I > think we can finally pull it out of testing after more than a decade. > Anyone have any objections? > > If there aren't any sizable objections, it may require some > documentation tweaking (to up issue from 0.91) to 1.0, and possibly move > the version of the weights file to 1.0 as well. > > Questions, comments etc, please feel free to make them known. > Preliminary (not complete) Depreli results are attached using XG2 > rollouts as of 20130427. A regression (using v0.91) still has to be done > against all decisions in the original match files to see if more > positions need rollouts over what is in the current Depreli list. This > would likely increase the totals, but I don't believe it will be > substantial. > > -- > Michael Petch > GNU Backgammon Developer > OpenPGP FingerPrint=D81C 6A0D 987E 7DA5 3219 6715 466A 2ACE 5CAE 3304 > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg > _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
