On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 03:04:51PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > What we need to ask ourselves is why we are making a even numbered > release at all, it's not like we are running out of numbers. Ian says it > is because he wants this code to supersede the ancient 0.3 stuff as > something stable - which would be credible if he was just going to > change a snapshot and some text on the website. But that's not the case: > he's already made it clear that he wants to use it as a PR oppertunity, > contacting journalists, getting on slashdot, and whatnot.
And that's a good thing - if historically publicity has brought in donations, then I'm all for publicity. I've seen several people comment earlier that software shouldn't be released according to PR schedules - while I agree with this, I think it's definately possible t compromise and make both work at the same time. > We have led people on too many times. For the last three years, freenet > has been shoved on people again and again and again, but we have never > been able to produce anything that is actually of any value to anyone. A > lot of people will already ignore any news of a new release because of > this, and for every time we do it, that number increases. I think this > may well be our last chance to get anyone to care what we do. I would have to agree with this. Personally, I know 4 people (meatspace) who have tried freenet at least once, and 4 people who have left it because they've told me that it's too unreliable and/or difficult to set up, and/or buggy. I really don't think this is our "last chance" or anything quite as dramatic as that, but pissing off users left and right so that they have a bad taste in their mouths that they remember isn't the best release policy. Why not compromise? On one side, Ian has the very valid concern that this will drag on forever and nothing will be released if a deadline isn't set. On the other side, others have worthwhile concerns that the project not release something disappointing - to make it as robust as possible, and for that more time is needed. What's the problem with picking a *hard* deadline say 2-3 weeks from now, doing all of the work that is required between now and then, and then sticking to the deadline come hell or high water? That would satisfy those who need to have a hard date for journalists (which would be well in advance), it would satisfy those who are worried about us having to live through some 0.5rc500 release, and it would satisfy those who are legitimately worried about missing features? 2-3 weeks is arbitrary - for those people who are fixing problems, what's realistic? (Don't say 3 months) > Time is not critical here. Nobody who cares about a Freenet release > today will care less if it comes in a week or two. What is important is > the experience of those would be induced to give us another chance by > this release - if we burn them again we might as well start packing. I agree - with the time that has been taken in the past, I really don't think that another week is going to matter. But I think we DO need a hard deadline as soon as possible regardless of when that deadline is. Things aren't real unless there's a deadline. -- David Allen http://opop.nols.com/ _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
