On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 02:35:10PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 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.
Who cares? It is a recognized scheme that works.
> All the world is not
> Linux. Many others consider the 0.8/0.9 alpha/beta scheme normal.
Since quagga uses BSD style sockets, does that make quagga a BSD specific
project?
Get the anti-Linux chip off your shoulder. We're just trying to
follow models, be them naming, release, or development, that work.
Who cares what OS or project made the models popular.
Forget the 'OS religion' and think about the technical details at hand.
> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> Quagga-dev mailing list
> Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
> http://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
--
James R. Leu
> 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.
Who cares? It is a recognized scheme that works.
> All the world is not
> Linux. Many others consider the 0.8/0.9 alpha/beta scheme normal.
Since quagga uses BSD style sockets, does that make quagga a BSD specific
project?
Get the anti-Linux chip off your shoulder. We're just trying to
follow models, be them naming, release, or development, that work.
Who cares what OS or project made the models popular.
Forget the 'OS religion' and think about the technical details at hand.
> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> Quagga-dev mailing list
> Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
> http://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
--
James R. Leu