Why??

[WaxDragon]

I quote from the ReactOS Weekly Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 8

"0.2.9? Another One?

Yup, we have another release planned for you all. 0.2.9 is our last
release before the very-much-anticipated 0.3.0 release."

Could we stop saying that?  0.3.0 is not the release after 0.2.9, nor
0.2.8, nor 0.2.5!  0.3.0 will happen when we hit the stated goals, and
unless networking gets some serious attention, we will see 0.2.10.

So, please, can we stop saying "This is the last release before
0.3.0"? It makes us look bad, and confuses people when we release yet
another 0.2.x.

Don't get me wrong, we are closer to 0.3.0 than ever before, but there
are still many bugs.

WD
--
<Russell> argh
<Russell> iterator shenanigans :/

[TwoTailedFox]

Sorry, it's become a force-of-habit waiting for 0.3.0 like this ;)

I'll make the language a little more neutral.

On 12/13/05, WaxDragon [e-mail] wrote:
> I quote from the ReactOS Weekly Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 8
>
> "0.2.9? Another One?
>
> Yup, we have another release planned for you all. 0.2.9 is our last
> release before the very-much-anticipated 0.3.0 release."
>
> Could we stop saying that?  0.3.0 is not the release after 0.2.9, nor
> 0.2.8, nor 0.2.5!  0.3.0 will happen when we hit the stated goals, and
> unless networking gets some serious attention, we will see 0.2.10.
>
> So, please, can we stop saying "This is the last release before
> 0.3.0"? It makes us look bad, and confuses people when we release yet
> another 0.2.x.
>
> Don't get me wrong, we are closer to 0.3.0 than ever before, but there
> are still many bugs.
> WD
>
> <Russell> argh
> <Russell> iterator shenanigans :/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

--
"I had a handle on life, but then it broke"

[Jonathon Keogh]

Hi, sorry about the lateness on this.

Here's a conversation I had with someine in IRC:
[22:21:40] <x512dev> do you know what the deal is? i thought they were 
going to go to 0.3.0 after 0.2.7...now they released 0.2.8 and 0.2.9 is 
in the works :|
[22:21:53] <Jonny> lol gimmie a sec
[22:23:21] <x512dev> amazing how much of WinNT they've implemented in a 
16MB iso
[22:23:29] <Jonny> Yeah :|
[22:26:14] <Jonny> >> I quote from the ReactOS Weekly Newsletter - 
Volume 1, Issue 8
[22:26:14] <Jonny> >>
[22:26:14] <Jonny> >> "0.2.9? Another One?
[22:26:14] <Jonny> >>
[22:26:14] <Jonny> >> Yup, we have another release planned for you all. 
0.2.9 is our last
[22:26:14] <Jonny> >> release before the very-much-anticipated 0.3.0 
release."
[22:27:01] <Jonny> ohh
[22:27:02] <Jonny> wair
[22:27:04] <Jonny> *wait
[22:27:05] <Jonny> >
[22:27:05] <Jonny> > Could we stop saying that?  0.3.0 is not the 
release after 0.2.9, nor
[22:27:05] <Jonny> > 0.2.8, nor 0.2.5!  0.3.0 will happen when we hit 
the stated goals, and
[22:27:05] <Jonny> > unless networking gets some serious attention, we 
will see 0.2.10.
[22:27:17] <x512dev> :|
*[22:27:46] <x512dev> 0.2.10...wow...i would go to 0.2.9.1, sounds 
better....hell, 0.2.9R2 sounds better than .10*
[22:27:47] <Jonny> So, please, can we stop saying "This is the last 
release before
[22:27:47] <Jonny> > 0.3.0"? It makes us look bad, and confuses people 
when we release yet
[22:27:47] <Jonny> > another 0.2.x.
[22:27:47] <Jonny> >
[22:27:47] <Jonny> > Don't get me wrong, we are closer to 0.3.0 than 
ever before, but there
[22:27:47] <Jonny> > are still many bugs.
[22:27:54] <Jonny> lol
[22:28:12] <x512dev> techincally, in math, .10 = .1, lol
[22:28:16] <x512dev> 9 steps back...
[22:28:21] <Jonny> Yeah O.o
*[22:28:27] <Jonny> why not 0.2.9a ? :|*
[22:29:05] <x512dev> that works too

Just a thought, you've confused some people on this, why not instead of 
going to 0.2.10, go to 0.2.9a? And just claim "there's a few fixes we 
need to do before 0.3.0" (or something)?

Jonny

WaxDragon wrote:
> I quote from the ReactOS Weekly Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 8
>
> "0.2.9? Another One?
>
> Yup, we have another release planned for you all. 0.2.9 is our last
> release before the very-much-anticipated 0.3.0 release."
>
> Could we stop saying that?  0.3.0 is not the release after 0.2.9, nor
> 0.2.8, nor 0.2.5!  0.3.0 will happen when we hit the stated goals, and
> unless networking gets some serious attention, we will see 0.2.10.
>
> So, please, can we stop saying "This is the last release before
> 0.3.0"? It makes us look bad, and confuses people when we release yet
> another 0.2.x.
>
> Don't get me wrong, we are closer to 0.3.0 than ever before, but there
> are still many bugs.
> WD
>
> <Russell> argh
> <Russell> iterator shenanigans :/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Casper Hornstrup]

> Just a thought, you've confused some people on this, why not instead of
> going to 0.2.10, go to 0.2.9a? And just claim "there's a few fixes we
> need to do before 0.3.0" (or something)?

What is wrong with 0.2.10? Three numbers is simple. The confusing is from
calling trunk 0.3.0-SVN for a year while still releasing 0.2.x. Not from
the three version number scheme.

Casper

[Rick Langschultz]

I have an idea - each version of windows is code named. Does anyone  
remember: neptune, whistler, longhorn, blackcomb? Nobody remembers  
code names they remember the innovations, improvements, and  
annoyances provided by the stable or released version. I have a copy  
of whistler on an old machine and I would rather run that as opposed  
to XP.

Why not call the releases ReactOS (Zeus) or any other naming scheme.  
Linux distributions are released through naming. Also providing  
something like 0.2-12182005 would statisfy my check-out needs.

But I do like the code naming idea best. Since 0.3.0 may not (Or will  
not) be the next release. Besides it is tiring to hear people bicker  
about versioning. Just say the next release, or the next version.
On Dec 17, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Casper Hornstrup wrote:
> > Just a thought, you've confused some people on this, why not  
> > instead of
> > going to 0.2.10, go to 0.2.9a? And just claim "there's a few fixes we
> > need to do before 0.3.0" (or something)?
>
> What is wrong with 0.2.10? Three numbers is simple. The confusing  
> is from
> calling trunk 0.3.0-SVN for a year while still releasing 0.2.x. Not  
> from
> the three version number scheme.
>
> Casper
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Thomas Weidenmueller]

Rick Langschultz wrote:
> I have an idea - each version of windows is code named. Does anyone
> remember: neptune, whistler, longhorn, blackcomb? Nobody remembers code
> names they remember the innovations, improvements, and annoyances
> provided by the stable or released version. I have a copy of whistler on
> an old machine and I would rather run that as opposed to XP.
>
> Why not call the releases ReactOS (Zeus) or any other naming scheme.
> Linux distributions are released through naming. Also providing
> something like 0.2-12182005 would statisfy my check-out needs.
>
> But I do like the code naming idea best. Since 0.3.0 may not (Or will
> not) be the next release. Besides it is tiring to hear people bicker
> about versioning. Just say the next release, or the next version.

First you're saying that nobody can remember the code names and then
you're saying code names are better than version numbers? I don't get it.

However, even if we used code names there'd be still version numbers. I
however don't like the idea of naming the releases at this point, not
just because I'm terrible at remembering names ;)

- Thomas

[Jonathon Keogh]

Rick Langschultz wrote:
> I have an idea - each version of windows is code named. Does anyone  
> remember: neptune, whistler, longhorn, blackcomb? Nobody remembers  
> code names they remember the innovations, improvements, and  
> annoyances provided by the stable or released version. I have a copy  
> of whistler on an old machine and I would rather run that as opposed  
> to XP.
>
> Why not call the releases ReactOS (Zeus) or any other naming scheme.  
> Linux distributions are released through naming. Also providing  
> something like 0.2-12182005 would statisfy my check-out needs.
>
> But I do like the code naming idea best. Since 0.3.0 may not (Or will  
> not) be the next release. Besides it is tiring to hear people bicker  
> about versioning. Just say the next release, or the next version.

I think that's a brilliant idea - it'll get more in to the Windows 
theme, too.

Jonny

[Steven Edwards]

Hi,

On 12/18/05, Jonathon Keogh [e-mail] wrote:
> I think that's a brilliant idea - it'll get more in to the Windows
> theme, too.

We already chose a codename for the 0.3.x line though I can't find it
on the wiki.

--
Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[Brandon Turner]

http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Release_Management_Overview

The naming scheme was not added till the day after 0.2.9 initial release 
so at this time 0.2.9 doesnt follow this stnadard, it still follows how 
the last few releases were named.

Brandon

Steven Edwards wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/18/05, Jonathon Keogh [e-mail] wrote:
> > I think that's a brilliant idea - it'll get more in to the Windows
> > theme, too.
>
> We already chose a codename for the 0.3.x line though I can't find it
> on the wiki.
>
> --
> Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer
>
> "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
> that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[David Hinz]

Why don't we use buildnumbers?
Without any sense, just counting a number up and creating some major 
releases with names from time to time.

Just an idea...

Greets,

David Hinz

Brandon Turner schrieb:
> http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Release_Management_Overview
>
> The naming scheme was not added till the day after 0.2.9 initial release 
> so at this time 0.2.9 doesnt follow this stnadard, it still follows how 
> the last few releases were named.
>
> Brandon
>
> Steven Edwards wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 12/18/05, Jonathon Keogh [e-mail] wrote:
> > > I think that's a brilliant idea - it'll get more in to the Windows
> > > theme, too.
> >
> > We already chose a codename for the 0.3.x line though I can't find it
> > on the wiki.
> >
> > -- 
> > Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer
> >
> > "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
> > that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[TwoTailedFox]

We have SVN Numbers o.o

On 12/18/05, David Hinz [e-mail] wrote:
> Why don't we use buildnumbers?
> Without any sense, just counting a number up and creating some major
> releases with names from time to time.
>
> Just an idea...
>
> Greets,
>
> David Hinz
>
> Brandon Turner schrieb:
> > http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Release_Management_Overview
> >
> > The naming scheme was not added till the day after 0.2.9 initial release
> > so at this time 0.2.9 doesnt follow this stnadard, it still follows how
> > the last few releases were named.
> >
> > Brandon
> >
> > Steven Edwards wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 12/18/05, Jonathon Keogh [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > I think that's a brilliant idea - it'll get more in to the Windows
> > > > theme, too.
> > >
> > > We already chose a codename for the 0.3.x line though I can't find it
> > > on the wiki.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steven Edwards - ReactOS and Wine developer
> > >
> > > "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
> > > that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

--
"I had a handle on life, but then it broke"

[David Hinz]

I was talking about numbering the releases...

TwoTailedFox schrieb:
> We have SVN Numbers o.o
>
> On 12/18/05, David Hinz [e-mail] wrote:
> > Why don't we use buildnumbers?
> > Without any sense, just counting a number up and creating some major
> > releases with names from time to time.
> >
> > Just an idea...
> >
> > Greets,
> >
> > David Hinz

[TwoTailedFox]

0.2.9 not good enough as a Version Number?

On 12/18/05, David Hinz [e-mail] wrote:
> I was talking about numbering the releases...
>
> TwoTailedFox schrieb:
> > We have SVN Numbers o.o
> >
> > On 12/18/05, David Hinz [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Why don't we use buildnumbers?
> > > Without any sense, just counting a number up and creating some major
> > > releases with names from time to time.
> > >
> > > Just an idea...
> > >
> > > Greets,
> > >
> > > David Hinz
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

--
"I had a handle on life, but then it broke"