On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 08:44, Greg Meyer wrote: > On Sunday 28 September 2003 04:19, Warly wrote: >> - What could we do to improve 9.3/10.0 development.
> Use the commonly held definitions of beta and rc for labeling > releases. Too often, rc's are still full of major bugs, including > with the installer, that most reasonable people think should be gone > by the time you start using the term rc. Hokay... how about a definition of terms? Mandrake should have an Alpha release two weeks prior to their first planned Beta. To put it another way, we should begin the wind-up process two weeks earlier with an Alpha pulled straight out of cooker. Alpha-1 should be a signal that no new packages will be added without a damn fine reason, and if you want existing packages updated, you'd better hurry and get them and their dependencies sorted now. Anyone installing Alpha-1 on a production machine needs their head read. Alpha-1 should include the installer "as she are shipped" except for fixes (ie, no major design changes to the installer between Alpha-1 and Final, just bug-fixes and refinements). If Alpha-1 is abysmal, there should be an Alpha-2 crowded in there somewhere. BitTorrent is your friend, if you don't want to upset the mirrors. Beta-1 should signify "no new packages at all, no new versions except for showstoppers and security fixes." Beta-1 should inspire the braver/more foolhardy souls to install it on production systems. If we do this, the first RC may well be a genuine RC and should certainly be fit enough to routinely run a production system on. This should make Final shine, be a beacon of robustness for other distributors to envy. (-: Cheers; Leon
