On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 11:15:38PM -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote: > > > > > >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. No, only *critical* bugs. Such as the very long loading time bug, and the reseeding every time, both of which are new and will hopefully get fixed on Monday. After that, I would argue that we should wait a week, and reset if we find *critical* bugs. > > >>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. The prereleases are supposed to be semi-stable, no? > > >Is that fair to our users? Can't our users use the prereleases for a week longer? > > > > What is fair to Freenet users is: > - having some sort of release process and schedule Hmm. Schedule? Ian is the only one here proposing a concrete schedule. > - having an effective means of bug reporting that is not ignored by devs It isn't. Not any more. > - having devs eat a bit of their own dogfood I do. So does Ian. The only person who doesn't is Oskar. GJ used to run a freesite, I do test inserts (I run a freesite too, but I'd have to kill you if I told you which one). > - having well documented installation routines or easy installers Having easy installers and sufficiently documented installation routines. > - implementation of features that users are begging for I disagree :). _SOME_ features that users regularly beg for are not implementible, or not worth implementing. See the annual thread about permanent storage. > > So far the Freenet Project does not score well on the above points but Which ones? > 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 have a vested interest in a quick release... but I have a bigger one in it being a good release. > 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. Yeah, thanks Evil. > > Mike >
-- Matthew Toseland toad at amphibian.dyndns.org amphibian at users.sourceforge.net Freenet/Coldstore open source hacker. Employed full time by Freenet Project Inc. from 11/9/02 to 11/11/02. http://freenetproject.org/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021020/68639a51/attachment.pgp>
