On Tuesday 03 June 2008 07:04:01 am Lorenzo Fiorini wrote: > I agree that we need stable releases ( also more frequents, last was > almost a year ago ) > but I can't understand why "wasting" and event like 1.0 with a simply > "stable release". > > If we agree that the releases are for the "mass", the "mass" need good > reasons to use Harbour > and stability is "obvious" ( nodoby release "unstable" or at least > nobody say so ). > > 1.0 need to be "revolutionary" or at least be comparable feature by > feature with other similar solutions and be better on many of them, > since everybody expects that 1.0.x or 1.x will fix the bugs.
The idea of release cycles and version control is to slow things down long enough for them to be stable. Once we get this done, things will get very ugly for a while and we need for people in general to not be working from the ugly part of our work. 1.0 is already revolutionary. We need for 1.0 to be extremely stable and with as few bugs as possible so we can spend time on the revolutionary aspects in peace. -- Waiting for sunspots. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
