Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gcjhd-harmony-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender)
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
From: Salikh Zakirov <salikh@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [general] M3 milestone discussion
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:16:31 +0900
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <fah9fo$2ts$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <6e47b64f0708120602q1e9a9c7fvf786b64a4d3ee991@mail.gmail.com>
 <4dd1f3f00708121935m4b8ef591i9492d0242db432e5@mail.gmail.com>
 <46CB4BF7.8020107@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070819)
In-Reply-To: <46CB4BF7.8020107@gmail.com>
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>

Tim Ellison wrote:
> Weldon Washburn wrote:
>> How about move
>> M3 to the end of September?  This will give us a few weeks to discuss
>> what should (and should not) go into M3.
> 
> The content of M3 is whatever is in SVN at the point we declare it
> stable.  If there is code that is misbehaving then we would take it out
> to achieve stability across the codebase.  IMHO extending the period to
> decide what is in it doesn't make sense.

FWIW, I think that keeping 2-month cycle is better for the project.

For an external observer, postponing the release schedule will most likely
mean that either
(1) SVN trunk has serious stability problems, or
(2) development stalled and no differences from M3 are there to warrant a new release
To my knowledge, both are not true, and neither is the message we would want
to send to the world.

As I reasoned elsewhere, I think the most beneficial strategy for Harmony project
now would be release _officially_ (rather than doing developer snapshots) and keep to the schedule,
so as the distributions could start including Harmony into the 'unstable' areas.