Mailing List Archive

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Jay Fenlason wrote:

> So we've got this cool new project with a nice new website and cool
> and active mailing lists. Now we need a quagga 0.1 release.
>
> As soon as there's an actual quagga release I can start the wheels
> rolling to have it included in the next version of Red Hat Linux. But
> I kinda need a release first. Has anyone given a thought to coming up
> with a release schedule?

Yes, 'soon' :)

Seriously: Hopefully end of the week or else next week. probably will
be release 0.96 - to remain consistent.

RH specific note: The spec file included with the project - i'm going
to add 'zebra' to the Obsoletes tag.

> -- JF

regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: quagga-dev-bounces@lists.quagga.net
> [mailto:quagga-dev-bounces@lists.quagga.net] On Behalf Of Paul Jakma
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:17 PM
> To: Jay Fenlason
> Cc: quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
> Subject: [quagga-dev 85] Re: Release? When?
>
<snip>
>
> Yes, 'soon' :)
>
> Seriously: Hopefully end of the week or else next week. probably will
> be release 0.96 - to remain consistent.
>
Have you considered just calling it 1.0.0

It would seem to me that a clean break should be a clean break. If
this is the first "release" of guagga why don't we just call it
that. No-one one will expect a 1.0.0 to be perfect anyway; the name
itself implies that stability fixes may be needed.

Cheers

Wally

>

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Wally Ritchie wrote:

> Have you considered just calling it 1.0.0

I have, and i think we should first have a 0.96 shakedown release.

If nothing else, there will be s/zebra/quagga/ related things to fix.

> It would seem to me that a clean break should be a clean break. If
> this is the first "release" of guagga why don't we just call it
> that. No-one one will expect a 1.0.0 to be perfect anyway; the name
> itself implies that stability fixes may be needed.

0.9x name implies that even more so.

1.0.0 soon, but 0.9x first :)

> Cheers
>
> Wally

regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
"Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX."
(By Stephan Zielinski)

Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Wally Ritchie wrote:
>
> 1.0.0 soon, but 0.9x first :)
>
>

To repeat what I've already suggested:

Call it 1.0pre, then 1.0rc the 1.0. People will appreciate a familiar
approach and it gives the QUAGGA developers enough time and flexibility
to live up to whatever standards we establish.

1.1 could be the development branch, then 1.2pre , 1.2rc, 1.2.

I don't think 0.96 is a wise course of action from a psychological
point of view. Too much resemblance of Zebra's infant, undecisiveness
for a new project, only a minor step, ....

Regards,
Gernot

--
Dipl.-Ing. Gernot W. Schmied, MS Network Architecture & Operations
Senior Strategist Research Group
mailto:gernot.schmied@nanorg.org http://www.nanorg.org
PGP Fingerprint: 5D70 5690 47DA 9A21 D07E B9EE C764 C9B7 9B64 B27E

Call it 1.0pre, then 1.0rc the 1.0. People will appreciate a familiar
approach and it gives the QUAGGA developers enough time and flexibility
to live up to whatever standards we establish.

These are Linux-specifc naming conventions. All the world is not
Linux. Many others consider the 0.8/0.9 alpha/beta scheme normal.

The very fact that there is a release at all is news. That it has
lots of bugfixes and new features is even more news.

I don't think 0.96 is a wise course of action from a psychological
point of view. Too much resemblance of Zebra's infant, undecisiveness
for a new project, only a minor step, ....

The importance is the content, not the name. But part of the point of
0.96 is to declare that it is beta, not production. After a month or
so of people still running zebra.org zebra moving to quagga, and -pj
users getting around to updating, 1.0 can be released with
confidence. There is no basis for confidence yet - there has not been
enough widespread use.

I believe it will be better for the project to have a solid release in
a month - one that doesn't cause anyone to turn away due to problems -
than a labeled-1.0 release now.

--
Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com>

On 7 Aug 2003, Greg Troxel wrote:

> I believe it will be better for the project to have a solid release in
> a month - one that doesn't cause anyone to turn away due to problems -
> than a labeled-1.0 release now.

Greg, I tend to agree. Let's see, 0.96, 0.98, and 1.00. Hmmm, there
certainly seems room for an incremental (controlled) solidification path
to a major Quagga release.

Must not forget Quagga documentation, eh?
Project logistics, processes and volunteer maintainers assigned work;
would not one agree that would be wise?
On the other hand, when will the *zebra* name purge (global
substitution) happen? Is it thus safely presumed 1.00 will be
completely Quagga'fied?

On a side note:
Although quite uncertain at this point, the tires on UNH testing are
being kicked heavily in my back yard. Should approval occur, I do so
hope the logistics shall work out for a completion date prior to 1.0.
In that way some of its findings can be incorporated into the first
major Quagga release. Very tricky business indeed, these schedules they
are...

-Peter