ant elder wrote:
On 4/24/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/>
So I think it comes down to whether it is more important to put
something out by JavaOne (in which case I'd be hesitant to call it
"beta") or whether it is more important to attain a true "beta" level
of quality even if that takes a little bit longer.
I guess a lot comes down to everyones slightly different perceptions
as to
what the name "beta" implies, what do others think about this? Should we:
1) continue aiming for a beta1 release around JavaOne timeframe
2) continue with a beta1 release but take a bit more time
3) aim for a release around JavaOne timeframe but change to a non-"beta"
release name, alpha-x or maybe a numeric like 0.90?
I probably favor (2) as looking at things people have said they'd like to
get done it seems unlikely to me we'll be ready by JavaOne anyway.
...ant
I think it would be good to "Release early, release often" :) and have a
release around JavaOne for people to try our SCA 1.0 APIs and assembly
support as well as our new SPIs, and after that have more frequent
releases than we did in in the past, like a release every two months
maybe, with smaller increments each time.
I'm for a variation of your option (3)... refine the contents of the
release first, then decide to call it alpha/beta/gamma/whatever based on
what we've been able to put in that release.
Thoughts?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
