C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Hyrum K. Wright wrote: [...] > > In the past, we've been hesitant to commit to a specific date, but I > > think making such a commitment to ourselves would be both useful and > > motivating. To kick things off, I propose the following: > > > > * We shoot for a mid-May branch date, say May 15. > > > > * We can use the June Berlin hack-a-thon to do a final push for any bugs > > which have popped up during the RC phase (or a push toward an RC if > > something postpones the branch date). > > > > * A final release happens sometime mid-summer > > > > I'd be very happy if this process were to accelerate, but I think as > > things look right now, the above looks reasonable. > > > > Thoughts? > > I think folks' hesitation in the past to commit to a date has been less the > result of laziness and more the result of self-awareness. Subversion is a > volunteer community, and for most of our volunteers, I think the risks are > pretty low. Whether we ship 1.7 in the Summer or the Fall of the year is > of little measurable consequence to them. That's not a bad thing, and > please don't assume that I mean otherwise. I'm just saying that I believe > the inherent riskiness of deadlines (note the "dead" in the first half of > the word) is at odds with a workforce that, for the most part, doesn't bear > the burden of any risk. In such a universe, the motivation to contribute > has to come from something other than a somewhat arbitrarily chosen deadline. > > Of course, none of this means that those who *are* so motivated can't decide > for themselves to embrace the challenge of a deadline, and the dates you > present are as good as any to embrace. I have faith that if, in fact, > Subversion is beta-ready by mid-May, our community as a whole will accept > the recommendation of branching for stabilization at that point. > > So if you're game and I'm game, then let's call it a challenge we accept. > If our corporately-sponsored peers are game, too, all the merrier. And if > anyone else reading this comes bearing preexisting motivation but lacks a > challenge at the moment, we welcome you to the table, too!
Hmm... that makes sense, Mike. OK, I accept the challenge. - Julian
