> > > From: > Ian Clarke <ian at freenetproject.org> > Date: > Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:17:35 -0700 > > >>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. >
I certainly didn't interpret a week-countdown reset each time a bug is found in Oskar's bug release pseudo-code. That would be crazy! We would never ever see a point release. What I am saying is to model the release after Mozilla point releases. Freeze feature additions for a short period of time and focus on killing show stopper bugs rather then feature additions and when a build looks stable rebadge it as the point release. I would say that 0.5pre5 meets that goal. >>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. > > The average user not being able to install on Windows would be a blocker, no? If a good Windows installer could be built around 0.5pre5 then I would vote for that being 0.5final having used/tested every pre release so far. The snapshots after that point have become unstuck again. >>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. > > Netscape was beta (at least it was taken from pre 1.0 mozilla code) and pawned off as stable. That is what did more harm then good. Whether you like it or not, the perception is there that this next release of Freenet will be functional and stable. You would be fostering that perception by calling the focus of journalists on this release ... the first point release after more the a year. Don't you think that they are going to be expecting great things? The least that we can do is file off the pointy edges so they don't take an eye out when they come to look. How many will be running Linux on their computers that they want to try it out on? >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? > No one is recommending that people should use 0.3. However, people are using it regardless since stable plateaus in the current codebase have not been created for them or pointed out to them. The people still using 0.3 are not the people who will upgrade and then want to upgrade again in a week. >Is that fair to our users? > What is fair to Freenet users is: - having some sort of release process and schedule - having an effective means of bug reporting that is not ignored by devs - having devs eat a bit of their own dogfood - having well documented installation routines or easy installers - implementation of features that users are begging for So far the Freenet Project does not score well on the above points but it is getting better and better. Matthew is one of the bright points in this whole process that leads me to hope for the future of Freenet. I think that this last sentiment is shared among many of the other Freenet users if the latest regular freeblogs are anything to go by. Mike _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
