Re: Release of HEAD in a couple of months?

From: Alan Horkan (
Date: Sat Jul 27 2002 - 20:47:17 EDT

  • Next message: Mark Gilbert: "Re: Commit (HEAD): Merge the GTK2 branch into HEAD"

    On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Dom Lachowicz wrote:

    > Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 18:47:49 -0400
    > From: Dom Lachowicz <>
    > To: Martin Sevior <>
    > Cc:
    > 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.[12] 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
    > port.

    Jet lag kicking in again ...


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 20:53:38 EDT