From: Alan Horkan (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 20:47:17 EDT
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 18:47:49 -0400
> From: Dom Lachowicz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Martin Sevior <email@example.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Release of HEAD in a couple of months?
> Hi folks,
> I think that October 1st is extremely ambitious (read stupid) for a
> *stable* release date. Things we need to get together (just from our
> current codebase):
> Remember that the primary reason that 1.0. were such successes was
> that we had the benefit of several long pre releases (0.7, 0.9).
> During this time, lots of people downloaded Abi and banged on it,
> filed lots of bugreports, wishlist items, ...
I am really glad dom said this. This is what i was going to say before my
dialup connection crapped out:
I would like to see some sort of beta testing releases to the general
public before the final move to 2.0
I dont expect to have much spart time for testing in the next few weeks.
> stupid* not to go through a similar series or two of unstable,
> unsupported releases this time around. I'm not saying that we should
> wait 2 years to release. I'm very much in favor of a 1.1.1 build
> released around October with hopefully all of my "A" action items
> followed by several more 1.1.x releases. We'd follow that up with a
> short 1.3 series which handled most of my "B" items, and then get to
> 2.0. "C" items should be integrated all of the time. Note that my "A,"
> "B," and "C" items don't have to get implemented on necessarily this
> strict a timetable or in this order. There is room for mingling and
> shuffling. I'd realistically hope for a 2.0 no earlier than February 1
> and no later than April 15, and it would be unlikely that even this
> release would cover 100% of my above listed items.
I would very much like to see a release that we can invite users to use
(particularly those enthusiastic enough to be on the user mailing list)
but to be able to tell people it is not a full official stable release and
to use the stable releases unless they really know what they are doing,
and have big bad warnings about doing otherwise. (and i think the
printing breakage in the stable builds is tragic and should probably be a
very high priority).
We would need to aim to get lots of people using some sort of a nightly
builds to avoid too many duplicate bug reports. This is the kind of thing
where a build that times out after 2 weeks and starts warning users to
upgrade would be very useful. (if it is a testing/beta build we should
not allow the user to believe otherwise)
> FWIW, the next release should be called 2.0. Also, FWIW, I've spent a
> good part of my last week working on libgsf, librsvg, and I'm about to
> start working on gnome-print, in case you've been wondering what I've
> been up to. My personal plans are to target the "B" set inside of
> AbiWord in a few weeks after the necessary amounts of work are
> completed in the parent libraries and restart my work on Abi's GTK2
Jet lag kicking in again ...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 20:53:38 EDT