On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 12:32:43AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 11:15:38PM -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote: > > >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. > > Exactly, that is what we have been doing since 0.5pre1 several weeks > ago. > > > 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. > > With all due respect to those working on the Windows installer, I am > simply saying that the Windows installer is so simple that it blocking > the 0.5 release would be rediculous, and would only result in a total > lack of motivation on the part of those people. Fortunately, those > working on the Windows installer show no-such lack of motivation. > Releasing 0.5 without it would totally destroy our credibility in the eyes of the press and some of the public, that we are trying to convince. > > 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? > > We have been "filing off the pointy edges" since 0.5pre1. Someone has > to draw a line in the sand, it isn't a popular position to be in, but as > the project coordinator, I need to do it. We need to file off the pointy edges just a little more. A trivial patch to be applied shortly will reduce worst case startup times by about 2/3, but with large stores it might still be too long. Fixing the rest means a not-quite-trivial modification to NativeFSDirectory (making the hash, and the LRU, per-dirID). The reseed-every-run bug also needs to be dealt with because it compromizes network performance and if we deploy 10,000 nodes with it it will be a huge loss. Thus there will be a new prerelease with significant new code. There is also a rare LRU corruption bug that I will find with some systematic testing probably, but it's nothing to worry about. Thus, we will have a prerelease on monday or tuesday, and final on wednesday... this isn't very long for testing such modifications. > > > No one is recommending that people should use 0.3. > > Actually, we *are* implictly recommending that people should use 0.3 > since 0.3 is the current stable release. Hmmm. Are we? The prereleases are better than 0.3, and this point should be made prominently on the website. > > > What is fair to Freenet users is: > > - having some sort of release process and schedule > > Yes indeed. A schedule works both ways. It forces developers to adhere > to a release schedule that makes them sweat a-little bit (as I have > tried to do), while not giving them a totally impossible task. > > > - having an effective means of bug reporting that is not ignored by devs > > devl at freenetproject.org > > > - having devs eat a bit of their own dogfood > > I test freenet extensively on a daily basis. > > > - having well documented installation routines or easy installers > > Both the linux and windows installers are pretty easy to get to grips > with. If you don't think so, I would appreciate your constructive > criticism. > > > - implementation of features that users are begging for > > Of course, but these do not have to be implemented before 0.5, there > will be a 0.5.1, and a 0.5.2 etc in which such features can be provided. Ian is right here. Apart from the proviso that not all features that users want are practical or sensible. > > > 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 agree, and please don't forget that the reason Matthew has been able > to do what he has done is because he is being paid from the very > donations, that result from the publicity that so many have been > busy sneering at in recent days. The big build up is precisely the reason that 0.5 has to be of acceptable quality. > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke ian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com] > Latest Project http://cematics.com/kanzi > Personal Homepage http://locut.us/
-- 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/20021020/56376b88/attachment.pgp>
