-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
sounds good to me. One thing - could you run some tests on the sampling so we can see how reliable it is, in terms of hit-frequencies? I'd like to get a "sanity check" on that, it's a key aspect. - --j. Daniel Quinlan writes: > I think we should define our release target date and try to be > aggressive due to the memory issues in 3.0, the easier process with the > new mass-check, and the overall accuracy and speed improvements we've > already made are worth getting out. > > To recap, 3.0.0 was released on 2004-09-22 and 3.0.1 was a month later. > If we target for last major release + 4 months (very aggressive and > unrealistic), that puts us at 2004-01-22. 3.1 is going to have > single-cycle mass-check via the sampling (now checked into SVN), so we > should be able to do that bit in 2 weeks at most. Also, if we only put > 4 months of code improvements into the tree, our pre+rc phase might only > take a month. > > So, my proposal is simply that we target January 22nd for the first > pre-release. I think we could have a release out by mid-February. > > We'll probably need to leave some speed and efficacy improvements out of > 3.1 unless some major patches are contributed, but I think we could just > keep the same goals in place for 3.2 and do another fast cycle. > > Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFBo8EpMJF5cimLx9ARAqI5AJ4mla9YCKn1uy60GyC6/bex0Gu9iwCgiZeL QnloLPaBjpzqxGrwUSoQyak= =fl0A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
