1.0 roadmap

Alexander Belchenko bialix at ukr.net
Wed Nov 21 06:13:47 GMT 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

James Westby пишет:
> On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 18:23 +0000, William Dode wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> It will also be difficult to explain every time to the users and 
>> benchmarkers of 1.0 that they should use packs...
> 
> It seems disingenuous to me to respond to any comment on
> the performance of 0.92 (and by extension the planned 1.0)
> by saying that they should use packs instead. I realise that
> that is where the focus is, and that is where the future
> lies and it gives the user an impression of what they can
> expect in a future release if they choose Bazaar now.
> 
> When Bazaar reaches 1.0 there will be a lot of people that
> consider it, or at least just read some blog posts that compare
> it to other systems. Some of these comparisons will obviously
> include performance, and will probably use the default format.
> 
> We know that Bazaar wont compare favourably in many tests with
> the current default format. You may wish to answer every of these
> posts saying "try packs, they're much faster", but this still
> doesn't compare to the experience users will have when actually
> using Bazaar.
> 
> If one of the points of releasing Bazaar is sending a message that
> it is ready to use, and one part of that is fast enough to use,
> then you are undermining that by saying that all comparisons must
> be done against a non-default format. By making it non-default you
> are sending a message that it is not ready yet, and I believe Robert
> would say packs aren't ready. I believe this would leave the impression
> for many users that Bazaar as a whole isn't quite ready yet, assuming
> not all of them actually try it for themselves, as it will work
> great for most sized projects, perhaps being let down a little
> by network performance.
> 
> Another concern I would have is that you may push users on to
> packs with 1.0. I don't know what your plans are with schedules
> of the updates, but this would lead to them being encouraged
> to upgrade formats. I believe that it could be a reasonable
> expectation to have life fairly free from these incompatibilities
> and upgrades while using a stable series of a program.
> 
> I think that it would be better to release with packs as
> default and at a stage where they are good enough that users
> wouldn't have to upgrade until 2.0, or at least for a good while.
> 
> However I realise this will take quite some effort and quite some
> time, and there are several reasons to want to get a 1.0 out 
> there.
> 
> To sum up, I think Bazaar is great, and could be released as 1.0
> now. However as I outlined before there are some of known bugs
> that could get in some peoples way, and I would try and discourage
> responding to comments with a suggestion to try packs.
> 
> This is not meant to be a rant against packs themselves, they're
> great and will really make a difference.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James

Completely agree here.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHQ8ybzYr338mxwCURAitzAJ95I1wENdjYYzAmqcQJhL7PygpWbwCgj6OP
rz1vaVAdWY3eHLdzWSicYBQ=
=Kf59
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the bazaar mailing list