On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:38:27AM +0100, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > > I think no, if we follow the rules. > > > > > > i would like to know whats going on behind this. > > > you dont like that > > > 1. we push new features > > > > Yes, especially not when by the rules they would be "basically" forbidden. > > thats misunderstanding. release announcement is public 'hello we are still > living' advertisement for _users_ around the globe where you dont have space > for explaining the subtleties of releasing stages. > > for us - if you want some rules about releasing stages - take this > http://www.lyx.org/VersioningSystem
A beta release (...) contains all major new functions of the next stable release > and this > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg158367.html Beta - once we decide that all planned features are in and basically working we move to beta. From this point the main focus of developers should be cleaning the bugzilla from bugs with 2.0 target we get from users. So some small features can happen, but its stopper for any refactoring code "with some instability period" etc ;) > in my understanding strict rules are needed when the last chance of normal > dicsussion is not possible and the environment starts turning into chaos. Of course, one can give any interpretation of the citations I reported above, once a proper definition of "major" and "small" is given. Due to this, I think that it means that the code can be "basically" destabilized, provided that there's "consensus". Fine, good to know. > even if i say strictly no features from now, you can always start playing with > the definition of bug vs feature. moreover some time i want to be open for few > particular things - like rc2rc conversion eg. Oh, I think that a good sophist could convince me that "major" means small and "small" means major. -- Enrico
