I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation, I'm just now getting mostly unpacked from a move to Somerville, MA. I agree with Simon in that we should be careful what we call "beta". I know that we all would like to get to beta quality code and features as soon as we can, but I don't think we are there yet nor will we be there by JavaOne. What we currently have in the trunk I think is a much more manageable code base but it actually has fewer features, if I'm not mistaken, than M2 had. So, my vote, if I had a binding one, would be for 3, with a name of M3 or maybe alpha.
-Bert On 4/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
