Vincent van Ravesteijn - TNW wrote: > >lets start landing towards 2.0. > > That's what we call a "flying start"...
i'm not sure who is this "we"; from the last discussions about release plans it looked like that more devs thought we are already late and particularly can't remember anybody claiming we should wait little bit longer. if its not the case then sorry and lets discuss the stages a little bit more. > >Preliminary dates for the stage beginning: > >Alpha - next week if possible > > Did we leave the instability period that was expected due to: > - threaded export, > - movements of code in the dispatch machinery, > - insetdialog changes, > - insetTabular changes. > > These were quite intrusive changes not that long ago. I understand the > alpha release doesn't have to be perfect, but there are now a lot of > crashes introduced in recent work, so I don't think it's the time to > 'release' anything. There are now a number of very very embarassing bugs > that I don't want to see in the alpha release: > * 6578, 6564, 6522 ... is it that you are against anything to be released out or that you are uncomfortable with 'alpha' naming? the problems listed do not look like showstoppers to me. alpha usually means exposition to close testing community around, ie neither to developers themselves nor to normal users. concerning the fact that the 1.6 criterion for beta->rc transit was no dataloss bug, than the crashes above being stopper for entering alpha state looks way too strict. anyway would you accept if we call it pre-alpha or only development snapshot instead? pavel
