Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 14.01.2008 08:58:04 Max Berger wrote:
>> Dear Fop Devs,
>> I think we are mixing two ideas here:
>> One idea (1) was to release 0.95rc, and then two weeks later 0.95
>> The other idea (2) is to release 0.95 and call it 0.95rc instead of 0.95beta.
>> (1) I think makes sense. It would mean after releasing the rc there
>> would be a short phase (2 weeks) where only bugfixed could be
>> commited. This is a good idea anyways. +1
>> (2) The traditional dev steps are alpha - beta - final. Some companies
>> use Release Candidate to make their beta-phase sound nicer. I strongly
>> disagree of the use of this word without actually meaning it - as long
>> as this is not a feature-complete version of fop 1.0 I'd vote -1 for
>> calling it rc.
> I think we mean (1), at least I do.

Yes that’s what I was meaning too, although 2 weeks seem rather short to 
me. I’d extend the testing phase to at least one month.
And according to [1] we would name this release 0.95 beta, as RC is 
targetted to a smaller audience. At least that’s how I understand it.

[1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html#release-typeso

>> Btw: Other projects, such as GNOME and eclipse have a strong
>> time-based release plan. Maybe this would be a good idea for the fop
>> project as well? It would give users (and plugin developers) more
>> certainty about whats going on.
> Well, nice in theory but that's only possible if there are enough
> resources. We have to do it based on available time and that's not
> really predictable in our case.

Agreed. I seem to have seen somewhere on the website that we would try 
to make a new release about every 6 months. It’s not such a bad 
indication IMO.


Vincent Hennebert                            Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert         http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache FOP Committer                         FOP Development/Consulting

Reply via email to