We've been here before though. :) It seems impossible to come to a common understanding on this. For the record, I agree with Johan, but I think that if we can't agree on whether to call it beta, we should just call it alpha or integration build or something. As long as we keep going trying to push a release out.
Eelco On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sure. but it is the magnitude of those changes. beta should more or less be feature complete. all these changes you are backporting are features. -igor On 3/14/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > beta == changes can happen.. > beta != api is stable. > > johan > > > On 3/11/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > i am afraid of people starting to use it. put a lot of time into it, > then > > upgrade to beta2 and have to redo a bunch of crap. if this happened to > me > > id > > be pissed, i dont like to have the poverbial rug pulled from under me > when > > im using a beta. > > > > if we are going to break it then lets at least do it before we have any > > sort > > of a public release. until then people who dont mind living on the > > bleeding > > edge can build from source - which those kinds of people do anyways. > > > > -igor > > > > > > On 3/10/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > i dont see how you expect to get traction when people know there are > > big > > > api > > > > breaks coming soon? why try something that will be completely broken > > in > > > a > > > > week? > > > > > > We're not making this build for new people to try out. > > > > > > > the people who are interested are the people who build from source > > > > > > Yes, like us. And like I said, before I want to start working on the > > > last few breaks, I'd like to take a breath and have a version without > > > the breaks of which i know it works well, so that while I'm upgrading > > > and testing in the background, the rest of the team can go on and we > > > can make a deployment with it. I'm sure this would be appreciated by > > > more people who currently work on 1.3. > > > > > > >, so i dont see any reason to create any publically accessible > > artifact. > > > > > > What are you afraid of? > > > > > > Eelco > > > > > >
