On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:36:20 +0000
David Lewis <highwayofl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd love to do a pre-0.12 release to do just that... but since this is
> still beta, 0.12.0 **is** the pre-release to 1.0.0 anyway. That's why my
> opinion/vote would be to just go for it -- creating the 0.12.0 release
> soonish, knowing there are some issues.

We did have 0.{8,9,10}.0-alpha{,2,3} releases.  I found them annoying at
the time as it quickly became unclear which version bugs were being
reported against.  However that was before we had explicit version and
commit numbers in the saved games.  So there is some precedent for a
0.12.0-preN release.  Perhaps that is the best compromise this time round.

The other reservation I have with risking the dreaded Brown Paper Bag[1]
release is that it mucks around the users, or at least the ones that do
direct downloads rather than those who rely on intermediate packagers.  We
do owe them a measure of consideration.

[1] I believe I did actually download and compile the infamous linux
version that gave rise to the Brown Paper Bag phrase:-), but lucked out
in that I did not reboot until it was replaced.  That would have been

> I think the major thing we want to
> try and avoid is big blockers (P0). So far most have been fixed,

I lack your confidence there.  We only got the REF working again
this week!  BR#3089 is not encouraging.

> Such is the way of OSS that doesn't have enterprise backing, with a very
> small team and you doing 99% of the work. I am amazed and pleased that you
> were able to stick with it for so long! I don't know that I could have done
> that.

Stubbornness is a virtue in this context.  I will be here for 1.0.

Mike Pope

Attachment: pgp5yTj5uHjLh.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Freecol-developers mailing list

Reply via email to