On Tue, 29 May 2001, giacomo wrote:
> > > > Although we can't start with 2.1 before we released 2.0 it is easier to
> > > > maintain, so I vote +1 for c).
> > >
> > > Why can't we start with 2.1 on the main branch and have the beta in a
> > > side branch? If we aggree that the functionality of the beta1 is what
> > > will be in the final release I don't see any problems? Bugfixes can be
> > > joined into the main branch from time to time (if I understand CVS
> > > correctly).
> >
> > i think we should strongly avoid doing any development on 2.1 until we've
> > released 2.0 final and put in some hours into docs and helping users.
>
> I'm not sure on this. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to force 2.1
> development and, yes, we need to write docs sooner that later. But from
> now on we need to decide for every single patch/contribution/donnation
> if it will make it into 2.0 or 2.1. And we already have such things like
> the SOAP server/client service from Michael Homeijer, like the
> StreamGenerator contributed today from Kinga Dziembowski.
>
> Sure we can add many more components and functionality but this way
> we'll never reach a stable 2.0 version soon. That's why I've proposed to
> branch the 2.0 from the 2.1. Can you agree with that?
we can add components all we like in a stable series - we just can't
change the way things work underneath without careful consideration. it's
like the linux kernel - we can add device drivers all we want, but we
can't change the driver api. right?
anyway, look, my worry is that everyone will focus on putting goodies into
2.1 if we branch off shortly and 2.0 will be half-heartedly released
without any real testing, work on docs or time spent helping users become
familiar with the new freedoms and constraints c2 gives/forces upon you.
do you see where i'm coming from?
- donald
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
