On 05/10/2011 01:35 PM, Earle, Erik wrote:
My team is in the process of vetting and rolling out ATS for the first
time. I've seen the recommendation here and there on this list to use
the latest version (2.1.8 at this point). My issue is that I need to
be able to describe why putting software on the front channel that is
marked as 'unstable' is a good idea to my operations team.
Two questions here:
1 -- what does 'unstable' mean in this case?
It means two things:
1) We don't make any guarantees that it's stable, i.e. there's a little
more risk that code gets committed that is not well tested. In all
honesty though, I'm 100% certain that v2.1.8 is more stable than v2.0.1,
just by looking at the number of serious fixes we've made since that
release. That doesn't mean we haven't introduce any new bugs though (in
fact, I'm sure we have).
2) Probably more important is that features, configurations, and APIs
are not stable, and will change within the release.
2 -- Is there a road map to the next stable version (3.0, right?)
Yes, we'll make v2.1.9 in a couple of weeks (hopefully), and then v3.0 a
week or two after that, depending on the results of v2.1.9. V2.1.8 is
very close to what will be v3.0, the only two big things missing is some
more IPv6 support, and more efficient byte-range requests. Everything
else would be very minor changes I think (at least according to the bug
list for v2.1.9).
-- leif
