Ahh, guys, you do realize that 0.9.x is actually backwards from 1.0-FOO.
If anything, can we at least agree that math will be part of our
version numbers?
-David
On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Man. I agree with everyone here, a little :)
I'd love to see the milestone nomenclature abandoned.
I'd also love to see us knock a few corners off and get the console
working before a 1.0
So ideally, I'd love to see this as 0.9, and we all commit to focus
on a very quick cycle to 1.0 that has basic console (lets take out
what doesn't work?) and some final user-facing things like
deployment stuff.
I think we can fast-rev past 1.0 to add things like hot deployment,
performance tweaks, etc...
Doing what we are doing now as 0.9 and committing to the next as
1.0 should focus our attention pretty well. :)
If forced to chose, I'd take 1.0 w/o console now and then work hard
to get a 1.1 out w/ console....
geir
On Sep 19, 2005, at 8:46 PM, 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
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
