In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew
Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:23:22AM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
In message <003801c277bf$9856cf00$0100a8c0@cyr>, u Uler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Wouldn't everybody be happier if you gave them more time to think about
>things? We all want 0.5 to come out, but what is the hurry?
>
>Right now, we could decide on a date. The date can be one or two weeks
>away, but it will be a fixed date. Everyone works towards that date, and
>there are no surprises.
>
>If the windows installer is not done by then, do not release it with
>0.5, but at least that gives everyone some time to test the release
>candidate and work everything over.
>
>How about November 1. It's a Friday, so everyone can go out and have a
>bear after the release.
^^^^
In this country, a domesticated ungulate would be a more conventional
choice.
I agree about the timescale though, and we should all be asked to use
the release candidate rather than/as well as the latest snapshot until
then, apart from testing the windows installer.
Uh, what's that supposed to mean? If you haven't been keeping up with
the pre series, you're an asshole. And it's certainly not mine or ian's
fault that you haven't.
Well, I've tried pre1-5, and reported to the list which ones (2 out of
5) actually work here. But if we had a release candidate that was
actually fixed for a week or so there would be time to run it for a few
days, and check the installation process a few times, maybe try it with
a different JVM etc.
>I know it seems like a long time from now, but
>that will build up the suspense, right? (That's a joke)
>
>Whatever you decide, good luck with the 0.5.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:devl-admin@;freenetproject.org]
>>On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
>>Sent: Saturday, 19 October, 2002 16:18
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] 0.5 release - Wednesday
>>
>>> It is my understanding that the mozilla project does *exactly* what
>>> Oskar suggests (with the exception that their check-in freeze
>periods
>>> are a *month* now).
>>
>>So whenever a bug is discovered during that time, the clock is reset
>to
>>1 month from that time? I doubt that very much.
>>
>>> You also mention in another post that the windows installer is
>>> largely irrelevent. While I am no fan of Windows and don't run it
>>> myself, that is a very foolish thought process. The installation
>>> process is a major part of any release.
>>
>>My point is that it isn't a blocker.
>>
>>> Talking to people that used to use Netscape, Netscape's premature
>>> release of 6.0 has done more damage then good. It doesn't take
>>> much for people to turn away from a product. Netscape learned
>>> their lesson (that they had forgotten). So should Freenet learn
>>> from other's mistakes ... we don't have to make them all ourselves.
>>
>>Firstly, Netscape 6.0 wasn't a beta, Freenet is. The last stable
>>release of Netscape actually worked, unlike Freenet 0.3.
>>
>>Explain why we should continue to recommend 0.3 as our stable release
>>when it doesn't even work any more, and current CVS is infinitely more
>>stable?
>>
>>Is that fair to our users?
>>
>>Ian.
>>
>>--
>>Ian Clarke
>ian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com]
>>Latest Project
>http://cematics.com/kanzi
>>Personal Homepage http://locut.us/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>devl mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
--
Roger Hayter
_______________________________________________
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
--
Roger Hayter
_______________________________________________
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
