On Jun 9, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Adrian Lienhard wrote: > Stef, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't imply that we need to fix the > 179 issues for 1.1. But what we should really do is to identify whether there > is any show stopper.
sure :) > I started going through the 1.1-tagged issues yesterday and I have moved > stuff that is not critical to 1.2 (or close what doesn't need any further > action). Yes I saw and I started to do that a while ago too. > Maybe it would be better not to tag issues with 1.2 unless we know that we > want to take them into account for 1.2. Else we end up being in the same > situation as now. may be :) > > Also, people who know there is something that really needs to be fixed for a > 1.1 release should speak up now. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > > On Jun 9, 2010, at 08:03 , Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> >> On Jun 8, 2010, at 8:53 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote: >> >>> I think it's a bad idea to just switch the downloads from 1.0 to 1.1 now. >>> We don't even have a release candidate yet, hence 1.1 hasn't seen much >>> testing. 1.1 may be ok for personal use but is it also safe to be deployed >>> on a mission critical system? I'm all for short release cycles, but please >>> don't take such shortcuts. A high quality is really important if we want to >>> support the companies using Pharo and attract new ones. >> >> We can keep 1.0 download but we will issue 1.1 rc now. >> >>> So the next steps should be: identifying the critical issues (currently >>> there are 179 open issues tagged 1.1!), then fixing them, then we do a >>> first RC. >> We will not fix all these issues but moved them to 1.2. >> Since most of them exit in 1.0 and you can work with them I do not see why >> suddenly we should fix them in 1.1 especially >> just before the release. So stability also means that you should not change >> the system at wrong moment. >> And now this is not the moment to change it. >> >> Stef >> >> >>> Cheers, >>> Adrian >>> >>> On Jun 8, 2010, at 15:45 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Niko Schwarz >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Of course not. Just switch the default download (the big one, all over >>>>> the site) site to 1.1. >>>>> >>>>> I just suggest to switch from 1.0 to 1.1 as stable at the same time >>>>> that we switch from 1.1 to 1.2 for development. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think this is a good idea. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Then we never have 3 >>>>> "current" versions at once. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Niko >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> http://scg.unibe.ch/staff/Schwarz >>>>> twitter.com/nes1983 >>>>> Tel: +41 076 235 8683 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
