On 15.11.2005 10:28:19 Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > I agree with you two. Therefore, I've resurrected status.xml, added it
> > to our website again and prepared it so we can start using it after the
> > release.
> > 
> > BTW, I think I'm through with all the things I wanted to do. What's left
> > now:
> > - write the README/release notes
> > - Create a copy of the xdocs/trunk directory to xdocs/0.90alpha1.
> Sorry to be picky, but the word "alpha" gives the impression that the 
> release is alpha quality. I'd say it was beta quality by now. Anyway, I 
> thought in the past we had agreed on calling it 0.90pr1, with "pr" 
> meaning preview, which in IMHO sounds better than "alpha"

On the release plan we had "0.90 alpha 1" [1]. It's the first release of
a totally new codebase so without more (positive) feedback from users
(so far we only have bug reports) I'm more inclined to an alpha release
right now, soon followed by a beta release when we have more feedback.
For example, we don't have any experience of FOP working in a
multi-threaded environment. I haven't had time to do testing in this
area lately. Furthermore, memory is still quickly eaten up in the
current state. It would make me very uneasy to use something like this
in a production environment right now. I agree, from the feature POV,
it's at least beta quality but that only covers the layout engine due to
its many tests. But if the majority believes a "beta" is better, that's
fine with me.

[1] http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ReleasePlanFirstPR

> > - do the (PMC) vote on the release.
> > - tag and release
> > 
> > If it's possible I'd like to start the vote tomorrow and do the release
> > around Thursday/Friday. That reasonable?
> Sounds good.
> Chris

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to