incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: Our milestone release
Date Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:27:58 GMT
On Aug 7, 2006, at 12:13 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:

> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>>>> What's wrong w/ milestone naming conventions?
>>>
>>> I'm not a fan.
>>>
>>> 1.0-M1, 1.0-M2, 1.0-M3...
>>>
>>> is really misleading, IMO, as they give a sense of it being ready  
>>> to go
>>> 1.0....
>>
>> I'd prefer to use a stable (i.e., not automatically updated snapshot)
>> version to work with.
>
> So would we.  Just something would be better than nothing.

I see.

>> Also I really like the milestone numbering and
>> don't think it implies being ready.  It is just a milestone on a  
>> journey.
>
> Each to his own.  I think that the version number should be a  
> hint.  If
> yoko is that mature that calling it 1.0 is a good idea, that's  
> great.  I
> know that with Geronimo, we made the mistake of calling the basic  
> kernel
> "1.0-M1", which really confused people since it was only a display of
> the architectural ideas, and not a 1.0 candidate.

For those of you that don't know, Geir and I have always disagreed on  
this.  He thinks a milestone is means it is close, I think interpret  
a milestone as a checkpoint (like the milestone in a workflow or M$  
project file).  Anyway there is no reason to rehash this.

-dain


Mime
View raw message