I thought Ant's suggestion was just 0.90 and not beta anything. I can
live with this. I don't think we are ready yet to call it beta 1.0
or beta1 1.0.
Simon
haleh mahbod wrote:
why does it matter if we call it beta1 or beta .90? It is a variation of
what we call beta. The fact that there is a number after Beta is an
indication that there might be revisions of Beta anyway before 1.0 release
is reached.
On 5/2/07, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 on 0.90
On 5/2/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It would be good to choose a name soon so we can start completing all
the
> readme's and release notes etc, there doesn't seem much consensus on
beta1
> so how about 0.90? That sounds closer to 1.0 than M3 or alpha and still
> gives space for more releases before the final 1.0.
>
> ...ant
>
> On 5/1/07, Bert Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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]
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
