"Open Simulator code acceptance authority? " :)
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Maxwell, Douglas < [email protected]> wrote: > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > Is there a feature list somewhere that has been ratified by the Open > Simulator code acceptance authority? That would be a good place to start > for determining how far from "feature complete" the code is. > > v/r -douglas > > Douglas Maxwell, MSME > Science and Technology Manager > Virtual World Strategic Applications > U.S. Army Research Lab > Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC) > (c) (407) 242-0209 > NEW DoD Email: [email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Beta? > > I know this is an old subject. Feature complete is feature complete for a > particular release not for evermore. The point of a new releases is that > they will contain new new features, changes etc. or else why bother with a > new release. > > Alpha and beta are normally related to levels of testing e.g. internal > inhouse testing (alpha), released to the wider world ( beta) for a period > of > time before release. It gives an indication of the reliability and > stability. Testing, especially beta testing can in some systems may be a > judgement that a high level of stability has been achieved. This is as > applicable to iterative development cycles as any others. The mere fact > that > people have been using this successfully in a production environment for so > long suggests to me that the core of OpenSim is already stable and > sufficiently bug free enough to be used in these environments. > > By saying it is alpha you are doing yourselves and all the core developers > a > great disservice. You are all better than should be proud of your > achievements. > > Alpha software is saying "use with great care" it may be very buggy. > OpenSim is far better than that. By being permanently at alpha (after 7 > years it seems so) it is also obscuring from users what can and cannot be > used safely. Are you really saying to users it is not fit to use after 7 > years of development? Even beta is excessively cautious. > > I suggest that your use of alpha and beta is out of sync with the industry > norm and is hence misleading users. If you apply the OpenSim standards > would > you still consider all the viewer code alpha, second life alpha? > > I am talking as someone with 15 years IT experience in software development > and configuration management. > > Tom Willans BSc(Hons) MBCS CITP > Chartered IT Professional > > > On 12 Jun 2014, at 01:31, Frank Nichols <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The problem I see is that there are a lot of grids forming - people > and universities using OS and general "production" uses being made, all the > while we are calling it Alpha. Alpha gives great deniability and the > ability > to say - don't use this in a production system. The reality is that people > are. So... > > I suggest it is time (what about 7 years now?) that we/someone > writes a specification that basically documents what OS is today, and call > that the "spec" which then becomes maintained. Then move the code to Beta - > meaning that it implements the specification but has bugs. Then we can > focus > on fixing the bugs so the spec "works" and adding new features to the spec > that the dev's want to add. That way users will be able to do a little more > planning than they can today. > > I expect it will take a while to write a spec, so maybe 0.9 would > be > a good goal to shoot for going beta? > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Shaun T. Erickson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From opensim-dev IRC chat, last September 25th (edited to > leave out non-pertinent chatter): > > [17:24] <diva> justincc, ... are you ok with tagging this > release as beta? > [17:26] <justincc> diva: no - with these kinds of issues > I'm > unhappy with even not saying it's alpha. ... > [17:26] <nebadon> we should probably mark a beta as 0.8 > [17:26] <nebadon> and not 0.7.6 > [17:27] <justincc> nebadon: beta is meaningless here - > opensim is never going to be feature complete > [17:28] <nebadon> I am not saying that is what we should > definitively do, but say we were going to do that I think it should be 0.8 > for the beta, and I agree I dont think beta should happen right now > [17:28] <smxy> It could be feature complete if there were > more devs working on it. > [17:29] <nebadon> while things have improved considerably > [17:29] <nebadon> there is still a ton of broken stuff > [17:29] <frnic> smxy, you need to have a specification to > be > feature complete. > [17:29] <frnic> It is an evolving project, so doesn't have > a > specification. > [17:30] <diva> and who ever said that the tag "beta" is > associated with "feature complete"? > [17:30] <frnic> industry general definition is beta is > feature complete, bay be buggy. > [17:30] <nebadon> well ya thats true, i dont think that > either, i know i didnt say that :) > [17:30] <lkalif> feature complete is nonsense some middle > managers invented in the late 20th century > [17:30] <frnic> I was a project manager for 30 years, I > think I know that muchg - lol > [17:30] <nebadon> haha > [17:31] <AllenKerensky> ... just stick with revision #s and > call some of the milestones heh > [17:31] <lkalif> it has long been obsoleted and put to rest > where it belongs > [17:31] <nebadon> well one thing I would like to see happen > before we go beta is have BulletSim be the default physics engine > [17:31] <nebadon> and also work a bit better than it does > now > [17:31] <diva> that's not how it's used out there. It's > used > to denote "this is pretty good, but it still has issues". > > To my knowledge, and according to my logs (which are not > 100% complete), there's been no talk of this since, and 0.8.0 is on Release > Candidate 3 and about to be released. > > So, when might OpenSim move to a beta status, and would it > be a meaningless tag, as Justin claimed, or actually signify something and > be a real milestone for the project? > > -ste > > (AKA Smxy (IRC) & Shaun Emerald (in-world)) > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > <blockedhttp://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > <blockedhttp://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev> > > > > > > > > > > > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
