[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Oct 9, 7:17 pm, Christian Boos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Christopher Lenz wrote: >> >>> I must say that I'd consider that kind of change/vision outside of >>> the scope of even Trac 1.0. >>> > ... > >>> We will need to sort this out *somehow* for the future. Here's what >>> *I* want: us to release a 1.0 version sometime in this decade, and >>> postpone any big vision shifts until after that point. >>> > ... > >>> What I want is to fix the big problems we still have, for example >>> I18n or documentation/help. I don't yet want to think about multi- >>> project support, a generic resource system used throughout the code, >>> or big changes to the plugin/component system. >>> >>> There's a life after 1.0, if we even ever reach that point. >>> > ... > >> Well, multi-project support has always been a 1.0 goal, for one. >> Improved change notification is a topic for 0.12, I think (#1890 and >> the like). But we'll have other occasions to talk about all this... >> > > what do you think about adopting a model like git development, who > release/tag very often, say every 2 weeks or one month. see > http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git?a=tags for their tag history, and here for > their branch/merge history: > http://repo.or.cz/git-browser/by-commit.html?r=git.git > . > > what version would be called 1.0 should not matter imo, we are using > it since one year productive, stable and with great pleasure so nobody > would complain about calling 0.10 1.0. and also after 1.0 there may be > incompatible changes, thats life that somebody may come up with a > better idea how to do something. > 1.0 is a statement about API stability. At that point we need to be really sure internals aren't going to change. Thats hard. So yes, it matters.
--Noah
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
