Stability and releases (Re: Mixed-namespace support)

[Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:57:15PM +0200, Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> >>I personally thought that we were going to let a bit more time to test
> >>forrest with cocoon 2.1.1 (2 weeks).
> >
> >
> >Why bother?  We'll get a lot more testers by releasing 0.5 now and
> >releasing 0.5.1 if we discover any bugs in Cocoon.
> >
> 
> After 7 months people expect some kind of stability

When judging stability, what matters are the *contracts* between the
software and the user.  Those contracts were set when Cocoon 2.1.1 was
released, and Forrest's own contracts have been stable for months.  The
existence of bugs on top of this contract is irrelevant.  Look at Cocoon
- they have hundreds of issues and unapplied patches in bugzilla, but
they still do releases.

> I will forward a vote so we let everyone to decide for us, is that ok?

I'm -1 on releasing CVS as-is, as adding *.html and half-assed namespace
support *does* affect user contracts.  What I'd like to do is branch CVS
before the *.html patch and make a 0.5 branch of uncontroversial stuff,
and vote on the release of that.


--Jeff

> >>But for some reason you want to release this ASAP, that is ok, but given 
> >>that people hurried to commit stuff, can we delay this release for 
> >>Wednesday?
> >
> >
> >Looks like it.
> >
> >
> >--Jeff
> >
> >
> 

Re: Stability and releases (Re: Mixed-namespace support)

[Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>]

Jeff,

Jeff Turner wrote:
> When judging stability, what matters are the *contracts* between the
> software and the user.

And the libraries used by the product. If in the hurried applied to 
released 2.1.1 there is a bug that affects us (say excalibur-event) we 
will have to release a hotfix, new version.

what would the users think? "Hey! it took them 7 months to release and 
when they did it, they did without test it propertly"

> 
>>I will forward a vote so we let everyone to decide for us, is that ok?
> 
> 
> I'm -1 on releasing CVS as-is, as adding *.html and half-assed namespace
> support *does* affect user contracts.  What I'd like to do is branch CVS
> before the *.html patch and make a 0.5 branch of uncontroversial stuff,
> and vote on the release of that.


I have not mention that because Nicola agreded to revert it, and I just 
want to agreed on a date.

Cheers,
cheche