Ed Leafe wrote: > On Jan 15, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Paul McNett wrote: > >> I agree that the current dev trunk (0.8a) is superior to the current >> stable branch (0.7.2s), however there needs to be a trailing stable >> that >> people can rely on while the development happens in the highly- >> volatile >> trunk. That way, by the time of the next major release (0.8s), all the >> great new things we've done will have already survived weeks if not >> months of use and refinement. > > OK, so then you see point releases coming quickly, such as 0.7, 0.8, > 0.9, 0.10, 0.11, etc.? IOW, we don't go from 0.9 to 1.0?
Well, we'd need to define "quickly", with respect to not knowing how much time I'll have available in advance. Ideally, yes, there would be something like 6 weeks between point releases. Realistically, that is something between 8 weeks and 18 weeks so far. I've actually waffled quite a bit on version numbering/release schedules, etc. during my involvement with Dabo. On one hand, version numbering is completely arbitrary, just a designation, like a page number, something to refer to. On another hand, people make version numbers have meaning. 1.0 is a shippable product. Barely shippable, perhaps, but still something that can be tangible in people's minds (I, like you, think Dabo has been at 1.0 for a while). Currently, and I believe permanently, yes I'd like to see frequent releases (6 weeks between point releases like 0.8, 0.9, 0.10, 0.11) and I don't hate that numbering strategy (going beyond .9 to .10) as much as I once thought I did. It takes back some assumptions that people tend to have, such as that "version 0.5 is 50% to version 1.0". >> I don't believe we are acting differently than the average open source >> project here. > > I don't think that there is such a beast. I've seen project whose > numbering started at 1.0, and was up to 4.0 before the thing worked > well. I've seen others that were amazing products that did everything > they were supposed to that were at 0.2. I've seen your latter case but what successful open source project has stupidly high version numbers? > I know that you've heard this before, but for the sake of the > newcomers out there, I believe that the Dabo framework is way past a > 1.0 designation. The visual tools are well short of 1.0. To have them > both at the same release number is silly, IMO. Agreed on the relative status of dabo versus ide. The same version numbers tell people immediately which version of the ide they want versus version of dabo. Do you have another suggestion for easily accomplishing that? >> FWIW what you describe is basically what we were doing up until 0.6, >> except we didn't have a stable branch at all. > > And I thought that all we did since then was add a stable branch. > The only reason we held off on the new changes for 0.7 was that we > were irreversibly breaking the 0.6 code with the changes we made; > they were not incremental improvements. We haven't done anything like > that since 0.7. True, but that could happen any time... -- pkm ~ http://paulmcnett.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev
