mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel LŽcharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RC1, RC2, etc
Date Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:50:54 GMT
Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>
> On Jan 9, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>
>> Alan D. Cabrera a écrit :
>>> Cool.  I think we should rename 2.0.0-RC2 to 2.0.0 to better 
>>> communicate that intention.  WDYT?
>>
>> Well, until we have a stable version (I mean, no serious bug), I 
>> would keep RC*. Then we can switch to 2.0.0-GA ot 2.0.0.
>
> What's the point in releasing a version of MINA that is so badly 
> unstable that we must release it under RC2, RC3, RC4, etc.?
I never said 'so badly unstable'. I said, we need to have a stable 
version which has been proved bug free for a certain time at least 
before switching to a GA. So far, we can't anticipate bugs, as we don't 
think we intoduce bugs when we write code !


We certainly don't want to wait 4 years before going for a GA, but 
considering the serious issues we found in RC1, we may want to be sure 
that RC2 is used and tested by as many users as possible before we can 
consider it as a GA.

OTOH, we can also release a 2.0 and switch to 2.0.1 as soon as we fix bugs.

IMHO, it's all about the message we send to our users. People tend to 
think that RC are unstable by essence, we tend to think that we are 
simply cautious. If the GA is buggy, then it's the opposite : users 
think we are lazzy, and we think that it does not matter, we just have 
to provide a new bug fix release.

There is no way we can catch two birds with a single stone ...
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>


Mime
View raw message