Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jeff Genender wrote:
> +1 on what Matt says...and i will take it a step further. Instead of
> MX, why not let this next one be the RC1?
>
To me an RCx implies feature freeze and bugfixes only and it doesn't
sound like we mean that here given the console is "50%" done.
I don't agree here...IMHO RCx means you are on the way to a 1.0 and you
are getting "previews" of what is in there. But to add on to what you
said...at what point do we say "feature freeze" and this is what will be
in 1.0? Right now we appear to be shooting randomly as to which is
what, and in what release. Why can't we delegate back to our roadmap
(or a roadmap) and state what will be in each release going forward?
i.e. M5 will have these items...and 1.0 will have those items? I think
its important that we spell out what will be in 1.0 final. We could
debate this all day...but unless we give ourselves some targets, we will
never know when we have achieved our goals.
So let me take back my RCx statement. I would think we let this last M5
go (because we promised it and have already went through the motions),
and then define what is 1.0. Lets do the RCx...minimum 2 rounds (RC1
and RC2), and try to target a date for 1.0.
Actually, if that is the state of the console then it is going to be
months before it is ready. That means if we go down the "0.9.x" route
then we're going to see several releases on that branch.
Ship and be biled...
--
Jeremy
