On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 07:49:08AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > On the other hand 3.0.4 seems to be *done*. How many bugs fixed now? > Why not release?
Because 3.1.0 is so close and we'll very soon be telling everyone to upgrade to 3.1.0. Why make them upgrade to 3.0.4 first? > > > >>Would collection of data necessary to rescore 3.0.4 help in the > >>rescoring of 3.1 too, or is 3.1 too far off at this point? > > > > > >No, it would not help. And it would probably take most of a > >month. (Although 3.1 scoring shouldn't take as long!?) > > > > Eh? It sounds like *both* 3.0.4 and 3.1.0 are nearly done in code by > your description. And when I asked earlier about rescoring, the answer > was that collecting the data is the hard part, and number crunching on > that data is relatively easy. So it would take relatively little > additional effort to recompute scores for both versions. And why would > it take less time to compute 3.1.0 than 3.0.4? Right the data collection (running mass-checks) takes longest. But, the mass-check is specific to the vesion of the code used. So we'd need to run separate mass-checks for the two versions. According to Dan, for reasons I'm not yet aware, we only need one mass-check for 3.1.0 instead of 3 which we needed for the 3.0.x releases. -- Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
