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  we would name this release 0.95 beta, as RC is targetted to a smaller audience. At least that’s how I understand it.  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