On 5/2/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 1.0release > 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] +1 to using 0.90 (over reverting to M3 say). After this is done we should
take the time discuss here what everyone thinks the gap is between what we have and what a beta would contain. Simon
