I agree with Jeremy and Aaron. I think we need some additional
performance work in addition to the console and probably some minor
features. I'd prefer to make this V0.9.5 that is certified as a
technology preview with a statement that the console and other features
will be coming in the next release which is 1.0.0.
Matt
Aaron Mulder wrote:
You must be joking!!! Have you tried at the console recently? It's
like 50% there.
I'm sorry, I'll be happy to call this RC1 or 0.9 or whatever, but I'm
WAY not ready to call it 1.0. There are also a ton of JIRA issues
that need to be at least looked at before 1.0. Plus, like it or not,
I think we really need a hot deploy directory for 1.0 (though there's
a JIRA with some code for that). I guess I also think there's going
to be a lot of attention focused on 1.0, and I want to take advantage
of that with a great release, not just call whatever we have this week
"1.0".
Really, if you feel that strongly, call this a beta or RC and let's
start collecting the feedback we need to make 1.0 outstanding.
Aaron
On 9/19/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+100000000000000000000000
Hell yeah!
-dain
On Sep 19, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Before we discuss this to death, I propose:
* we drop the M5 branch altogether
* we fix any CTS regressions (once rather than twice)
this also gives Aaron a couple more days to finish up his features
* we create a 1.0 branch
* we make sure it still passes CTS, then tag it and release as 1.0.0
That way we :
* get rid of the Mx nomenclature that Geir positively dislikes
and that no-one else really seems to care for
* we don't have any confusion with 1.0-M5.42 branches
* we get onto a major.minor.maint scheme that everyone understands
and most of all, we actually get 1.0.0 out as the first certified
release like we intended at the start of the project.
--
Jeremy
