I am rather of the opinion that the struts versioning nomenclature is a wee bit on the humble side. This beta release of 1.1 is pretty stable. I dont see why you cant just loosen up your standards a bit and call it 1.1 , then when all the bugs are fixed call that 1.2 , etc... For 'bigger' or more stable version changes use bigger numbers. Really 1.1 is so much better then 1.02 that you should be calling it 2.0 when it is released (and the current beta releases should be something like 1.99....) That will help keep the corporate monkeys off peoples backs and lead to more impressively high sounding version numbers. :-)
-----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of V. Cekvenich Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 08:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Struts 1.1 Release [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>I totally understand and agree with the release policy, but I think it's > > worth remembering that a lot of these > >>questions are driven by the constraints of users' environments - e.g. in > > corporate environments like ours, there > >>any many people like myself continually fighting to get great open source > > products like Struts into the organisation > >>so that development teams can use them, and the latest versions of them. > > However, this has to be done within the > >>processes and policies that apply to any third party software, commercial > > or otherwise. > > Not trying to whine - but I fight the same battles. I work for a big, > conservative company. Telling people it's a 'beta' release - regardless of > what that means - makes it much more difficult to get things approved. > > Probably a greater percentage of your users than you realize are still > using 1.02 for the sole reason that 1.1 is still called 'beta'. Worse, > probably a lot of projects have started off that had to use 1.02 because it > was the 'stable release' - and then the development teams struggled. I saw > one project dump struts because they had trouble getting it to do what they > wanted (they were forced to use 1.02). > IMO, That could not possibly be a source of failure. I and others had 1.02 projects just fine! Statistically 80% of projects fail due to requirements, so that would be my first guess. (More numbers? most projects fail period, and that 99% of code in production is written by 1% of programmers) If they had tech issues, they could have gone with a experienced mentor who has had Struts code in production before, which is cost effective. And one needs to ask, why use open source? http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_business.php Because it is *better* quality is one good reason. my 2c, .V > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use > of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > information that is privileged, proprietary , confidential and exempt from > disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that > any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, > please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
