Bazaar Explorer 1.0beta ready for testing

[John Arbash Meinel]

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

Martin Pool wrote:
> On 3 February 2010 18:16, A. S. Budden <abudden at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 February 2010 16:36, Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy at canonical.com> wrote:
>>> I'm planning to release explorer 1.0beta around my Friday morning,
>>> around 36 hours from now. This version will be bundled with bzr 2.1.0 so
>>> I'd like to ensure the quality is as least as good as previous releases.
>>>
>>> There's are a *heap* of nice new features so please grab rev 401, read
>>> NEWS and test furiously!
> 
> I have some qualms about taking lots of changes in to plugins after
> bzr 2.1.0rc1.  Bazaar itself is supposed to have bugfixes only from
> that point on, and I think shipped plugins should take the same
> approach.  Specifically I don't want us to ship any plugin changes
> post rc1 unless we're sure they're safe fixes.
> 
> The point of the release process is to release a good version of the
> features we have at the rc point, not to do further development.
> Later stuff can go into 2.2b1.
> 
> Basically every release where we've let people scrape features in
> under or after the deadline it has caused regressions.  I don't want
> to go there again.
> 

So I think Martin raises a good point. 2.1.0 is meant to have already
reached 'stable' status. And while we allow a bit more change in
2.1.0rc1 => 2.1.0 than we will for 2.1.0 => 2.1.1, I don't think we want
 major changes.

This really does seem like something that would be appropriate for the
2.2 series.

One thing to consider... How do we get people to realize that our
current 'dev' series is still reasonable for regular use?

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktpx5YACgkQJdeBCYSNAAOemwCg1Au9oPTud1Lh2PeMwwgzR8LM
QsEAoIAF/dcmNoHZV3m8sADLIGBEJnxK
=Sq3E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----