proposal: 3.1 release target

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

I think we should define our release target date and try to be
aggressive due to the memory issues in 3.0, the easier process with the
new mass-check, and the overall accuracy and speed improvements we've
already made are worth getting out.

To recap, 3.0.0 was released on 2004-09-22 and 3.0.1 was a month later.
If we target for last major release + 4 months (very aggressive and
unrealistic), that puts us at 2004-01-22.  3.1 is going to have
single-cycle mass-check via the sampling (now checked into SVN), so we
should be able to do that bit in 2 weeks at most.  Also, if we only put
4 months of code improvements into the tree, our pre+rc phase might only
take a month.

So, my proposal is simply that we target January 22nd for the first
pre-release.  I think we could have a release out by mid-February.

We'll probably need to leave some speed and efficacy improvements out of
3.1 unless some major patches are contributed, but I think we could just
keep the same goals in place for 3.2 and do another fast cycle.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/

Re: proposal: 3.1 release target

[Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 02:47:15PM -0800, Dan Quinlan wrote:
> unrealistic), that puts us at 2004-01-22.  3.1 is going to have
> single-cycle mass-check via the sampling (now checked into SVN), so we
> should be able to do that bit in 2 weeks at most.

I would suggest that we do several run throughs, in the near future, of
the single mass-check -> score generation, get the process down, and make
sure it all works well before moving forward to having non-devs do it.

Get our ducks in a row, and all that...

-- 
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Homer:	Here's your magazines.  How many of these guys are named Corey?
 
 Lisa:	Eight.  Thanks, Dad.
 
 		   Bart's Dog Gets An F

Re: proposal: 3.1 release target

[Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 02:47:15PM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> 
> So, my proposal is simply that we target January 22nd for the first
> pre-release.  I think we could have a release out by mid-February.
> 

+1

And I agree with Justin/Theo that we should do a couple of dry runs of
the mass-check stuffs and validate that it's giving us good data.

Michael

Re: proposal: 3.1 release target

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> writes:

> sounds good to me.  One thing - could you run some tests on the
> sampling so we can see how reliable it is, in terms of
> hit-frequencies?  I'd like to get a "sanity check" on that, it's a key
> aspect.

Yes.  I will do so.  I'm going to compare auto-learning with
sample-learning using a similar percentage of messages learned.  It
should be easy enough to get it to a similar error rate if it's too
good.

Another thing I want to do is make it deterministic instead of using
rand(100).  If I change it to "learn 1 in N" instead of a percentage,
then I can easily do a mod on the md5sum of the id and/or date.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/