On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:32:22 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to
my
[...]
supporters for this idea./RANT
Guess why the next release is 0.9.9 and not 1.0 and
Yep, but sipmly _delaying_ the next release doesn't cure anything.
This only makes sense if the developers agree on a feature freeze and
announce a bugfix-only phase.
..or if it can be enforced somehow. ;o)
or that a separate branch is created for the feature freeze while the
development
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:24:21 +0200 (IST), Vassilii wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yep, but sipmly _delaying_ the next release doesn't cure anything.
This only makes sense if the developers agree on a feature freeze
and announce a bugfix-only phase.
..or if it can be enforced
Vivian Meazza wrote:
I only mention this because it indicates that the quality of our testing
might not be quite as good as it should be as we move rapidly towards 1.0
RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to my
observation very little changed in the meantime. The
Martin Spott wrote:
RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to my
observation very little changed in the meantime. The biggest success
was to install a consensus that the pre-release phase should last at
least two weeks. To my opinon two _months_ would be appropriate for
Erik Hofman wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to my
[...]
supporters for this idea./RANT
Guess why the next release is 0.9.9 and not 1.0 and why 1.0 is released
early next year?
Yep, but sipmly _delaying_ the next release doesn't
Martin Spott wrote:
RANTWe know exactly this phenomenon for several years now and to my
observation very little changed in the meantime. The biggest success
was to install a consensus that the pre-release phase should last at
least two weeks. To my opinon two _months_ would be appropriate for
--- Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm clever enough to realize that my idea of quality control is not
necessary the best one for FG ;-)) I simply want to point out that
the project is very well advised to have better quality control than it
had for the past years. I have one or two
Curt,
One follow-up question. Are we still following the convention of
odd-numbered releases being dev and even being stable. I ask as the
Getting Start Guide still thinks so, and I'll correct it if it is wrong.
-Stuart
Buchanan, Stuart wrote:
Curt,
One follow-up question. Are we still following the convention of
odd-numbered releases being dev and even being stable. I ask as the
Getting Start Guide still thinks so, and I'll correct it if it is wrong.
We tried that. 'Officially' 0.8.0 is the current
Buchanan, Stuart wrote:
One follow-up question. Are we still following the convention of
odd-numbered releases being dev and even being stable. I ask as the
Getting Start Guide still thinks so, and I'll correct it if it is wrong.
This clause should be removed - I remember it's in there, but
As some of you may have noticed, I completed a prerelease of
FlightGear-0.9.9(pre1) and SimGear-0.3.9(pre1). I haven't heard any
complaints about the prerelease, so I am planning to do a pre2 release
this week.
If all goes well and we have no major show stoppers, I would like to
start
Curtis L. Olson writes
We haven't officially decided, but right now we are talking about doing a
v1.0 release after the dust has settled on 0.9.9. That would likely happen
sometime early 2006 after the holidays.
This sounds good I have a 737 on the go but it won't be finished in
a week.I
13 matches
Mail list logo
