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