Michael Stahl wrote (06-12-11 13:20)
On 03/12/11 18:27, Cor Nouws wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote (03-12-11 15:50)
Yes ! we have not branched yet; master will branch at the
feature-freeze before B1 so we have:
master -------- Beta0 -------\----------- crazy stuff ...
\
\----- Beta1 --- stabilisation - Beta2
etc. :-
Correct. While explaining the whole event to someone else, suddenly it
became clear to me it might be much clearer when we have another naming
scheme:
master ----- Alpha1 -------\----------- crazy stuff ...
\
\----- Alpha2 --- stabilisation - Beta1
The great advantage of this is, that people having some expectation on
what a beta1 is, will not be disappointed.
Also, the whole schedule will not change, only the naming will be
conform what people get offered.
Will be something that marketing is going to praise us for, isn't it?
sounds most reasonable to me; i'd say that that calling some random
revision on the dev branch that happens to build on all platforms a
"beta0" is rather bad communication :)
Especially when that random revision is preceded by an extreme load of
commits ;-)
I have had the pleasure to do quite some work with various daily and
local builds the last months and quite often without (big) problems.
(Of course I only use a sub set of all features).
So I am not at all pessimistic about the quality ... *once* the probably
unavoidable build/merge/conflict problems after the freeze have been solved.
So yes, naming that supports communication to be conform what people
expect, would be useful IMHO.
Regards,
--
- Cor
- http://nl.libreoffice.org
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
