Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 19:24:01 schrieb bugs buggy:
> On 9/25/08, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 10:35:27 schrieb Zarel:
> > > 2008/9/25 bugs buggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Ok, lets do it.
> > > >
> > > > Release 2.1 beta 5.
> > > > Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
> > > >
> > > > Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
> > > >
> > > > I would think they would want 2.2 for the FMVs, and the improved path
> > > > finding, and they can play 2.1 for.. um... {insert a reason here}
> > >
> > > I vote it be called 2.2 beta 1. Trunk is at _least_ as stable as one
> > > of the 2.1 betas.
> >
> > In answer to all these emails from today: I generally agree with Giel,
> > but:
> >
> > Since everyone wants to see 2.2 "now" (where now=in a few months, but
> > don't tell anyone...), I go with Per's vote: Call it alpha1.
>
> You mean a 'stable' release (with no alpha/beta prefix)? Alpha/Beta =
> "now" in my book.
A final release, yes. Target-point was that 2.2.0 is not going to come earlier
than 2.1.0... (Except if you skip 2.1.0, of course, but that's cheating. :P )> Also make clear that it is unmaintained at the moment, bugs are in it and > > > lots > > of stuff is not yet finished. Also please do not remove anything, since > > it would just have to be added back later -> mess. > > Unmaintained in what way? It still is going to be in Alpha/Beta stage, so > fixing bugs that crop up ARE going to be fixed. It is implied that a > alpha release needs more testing than a beta release anyway. Unmaintained in a way that bugfixing has no priority (yet). At least for me. I know things are broken, and I know that the situation might change significantly after I have finished my work, so I will not start to introduce workarounds for half-finished stuff. > And in case no one noticed: trunk *has* issues. I know at least one, since > I > > > am the "owner" of a bug, which is caused by half-finished work due to > > time constraints. (Which cannot be fixed before 1.5 months in the future, > > due to the same time constraints.) > > Yes, and about that, would reverting be the best answer for this? (Though, > I am not sure it would be easy to revert, might be a can of worms like the > path finding) I don't think you know the future, so you will not be 100% > sure that you will be free in 1.5 months to work on it. No, I do not know whether I have time in 1.5 months. But at least the chance is more than 0%... And I actually would like to finish my work. Unless there are big objections, I would rather not hand it to someone else to finish... As I said earlier, undoing the changes just to reintroduce them later sounds a bit silly in my eyes. Reverting might prove more difficult than you might initialy think, too. And it would make actual work (on the reverted features) just more complicated (imo). I'd just leave it broken and tell complaining users: ALPHA. --Devu
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
