New 1.14 RC date?
lekktu at gmail.com
Thu Apr 2 22:16:12 BST 2009
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 23:02, Talden <talden at gmail.com> wrote:
> It has to be possible to express that something is not intended for
> production use. If we can't express this to our users effectively in
> the UI, what makes you think we can explain it on the download page -
> If we offered 'Bzr 1.14' and 'Bzr 1.15 early access', which do you
> think users would download rather often?
"Early access"... That's a strawman if I ever saw one. Offer "bzr
1.14" vs. "bzr 1.15 Beta", or "bzr 1.14" vs. "bzr development build",
like many projects do. Are you really saying that in these projects
it's common for users to download beta software accidentally?
> I think the UI is a much much better place for us to express this - we
> can display warnings when beta content is used, we can prevent default
> behaviours from ever touching beta content and make sure that, to even
> access beta content (since they need to know the option names to type
> them in), the user must have viewed a help page that clearly states
> the inappropriateness of using beta content for production use.
It is obvious that you think that the UI is a much better place. I
don't see any argument why it would be so (better than separate,
clearly marked developmente builds, I mean).
> No. The plan has been to include development formats - these are beta
> quality. So sticking to the plan is to include brisbane-core, not
> exclude it.
Nobody is saying that it shouldn't be included. At some point. People
is saying that it should not force the release schedule to slip.
> The definition of whether this beta content should be in
> a release is not some moral absolute. I stand by my reference to
> religion - holding up 'my definition of what a release is' as a moral
> absolute is effectively a religious statement.
You're the only one talking about moral absolutes. I was talking about
software engineering and release management.
> *I* want to be able to evaluate and provide feedback on brisbane-core
> to speed it's advance towards production quality - and all indications
> are that some others feel the same.
And that can not be done if brisbane-core is in bzr.dev instead of bzr
> You're right,
> they shouldn't rush this in response to the bad PR bazaar has received
> - I don't happen to think they are.
Perceptions differ, obviously.
More information about the bazaar