From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 8 07:01:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1205016A4BF for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FDE843FDD for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:01:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kevin@caomhin.demon.co.uk) Received: from caomhin.demon.co.uk ([62.49.21.186]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19wMZq-0008oZ-0Y; Mon, 08 Sep 2003 15:01:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:01:07 +0100 To: Paul Robinson From: Kevin Golding References: <3F5C5A71.6020204@iconoplex.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3F5C5A71.6020204@iconoplex.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Old Way Was Better X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 14:01:13 -0000 In article <3F5C5A71.6020204@iconoplex.co.uk>, Paul Robinson writes >I agree except you will NOT recruit testers by making releases in this >way. You will make enemies. > >If something is named a -RELEASE, I and the rest of the planet expect it >to be production ready code, capable of going into a live environment >and the kind of software that I should be able to buy in a >shrink-wrapped box. What about the hordes of people who won't touch MS code until there's at least one Service Pack for it? Or the age old idea that people should never install version *.0 in a production environment? In fact a lot of people won't roll *any* version of software into a live environment without thorough testing by themselves first. Basically I'm saying that even if 5.0 had been to your standard for a release it still wouldn't have suited everyone. Although the project can, and indeed should, do all it can to make sure the code is up to scratch the process is never going to be perfect. Please note I'm talking about 5.0 here; for 5.1 I think far more people would be inclined to trust the name, and even with the warnings we've had 5.2 is about when most people seem to be expecting 5-STABLE. >Keeping the betas named as betas would be fine. 5.0-BETA-1 should have >been the name for 5.0-RELEASE. Then 5.0-BETA-2 for 5.1-RELEASE, >5.0-BETA-3 for 5.2-RELEASE, then 5.0-BETA-4, 5.0-BETA-5, etc. then when >the code is READY for a production environment and everybody agrees it >rocks, we finally get to 5.0-RELEASE Whatever the "release" should be called it would still need to undergo the RE cycle otherwise they could cause even more embarrassment to the project. For fear of ending up with 5.0-BETA-1-beta1 and other such convoluted strings I think -BETA should be given a wide berth to avoid the merriment some would revel in. That's not to say another moniker couldn't be adopted (something like -PREVIEW for example) just that the project shouldn't have varying standards simply because -RELEASE does or doesn't apply. Kevin