RE: [ros-dev] New Release - how're you feeling?

[Murphy, Ged (Bolton)]

Craig Talbert wrote:
> On 6/22/05, Murphy,  Ged (Bolton) [e-mail] wrote:
> > We need regular releases to keep public interest. New releases 
> > generate interest outside of the community, which can only
>
> be a good
> > thing, even if they don't contain radical new features.
>
> I would be very careful about mixing concern for generating 
> more interest in to a release policy that might give a false 
> impression of the progress being made on the project.
>
> It does give me a warm fuzzy feeling to see the version 
> number go up on reactos.com -- on (almost) any f/oss project 
> for that matter.  But I if I discovered the progress being 
> made was misrperesented, I might lose trust in the people 
> working on the project.  Trust is important, and if we can 
> gain the trust of end users, that's something we'll have that 
> microsoft never really earned. :)

This is a good point. However we're only talking about a minor release.
Minor releases generally only consist of bug fixes and small improvements /
functionality.

0.2.6 was a particularly bad release, and at the moment, (not counting the
header rewrites currently taking place) HEAD is much more stable and usable.

0.3 is meant to be the big bang release where users are blown away, not
minor releases. To take Alex's earlier comparison, the Linux kernel often
jumps minor releases (2.6.*) with no obvious improvements. You generally
have to read the changelog to see what has changed (and if it's worth you
upgrading)

Again, my point is; if we're not going to do anymore 0.2.* releases, then we
could be in for a long wait before networking is at a stage which meets the
0.3 criteria.

Ged.

************************************************************************
The information contained in this message or any of its
attachments is confidential and is intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee. The information may also be legally
privileged. The views expressed may not be company policy,
but the personal views of the originator. If you are not the
addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other
dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
[e-mail] 
mailto:[e-mail] and then delete this message.

Exide Technologies is an industrial and transportation battery
producer and recycler with operations in 89 countries.
Further information can be found at www.exide.com

[Jason Filby]

Hi all

I think we should just post an announcement on reactos.com that the
next release will be 0.2.7 and will be released in approx x weeks.

How long until we can feature freeze for 0.2.7? This should see the
branch stabilize enough after all the current header changes - that
should be enough. I'd rather not go adding a 4th number to our
revision - 0.2.7 is already so small a number.

Thanks
Jason

[Jason Filby]

I never heard anything against this -- can I go ahead?

Thanks
Jason

On 6/23/05, Jason Filby [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I think we should just post an announcement on reactos.com that the
> next release will be 0.2.7 and will be released in approx x weeks.
>
> How long until we can feature freeze for 0.2.7? This should see the
> branch stabilize enough after all the current header changes - that
> should be enough. I'd rather not go adding a 4th number to our
> revision - 0.2.7 is already so small a number.
>
> Thanks
> Jason

[Casper Hornstrup]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jason Filby
> Sent: 23. juni 2005 21:28
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] New Release - how're you feeling?
>
> I never heard anything against this -- can I go ahead?
>
> Thanks
> Jason

Yes. 4 weeks should be enough.

Casper

[James Tabor]

Casper Hornstrup wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jason Filby
> > Sent: 23. juni 2005 21:28
> > To: ReactOS Development List
> > Subject: Re: [ros-dev] New Release - how're you feeling?
> >
> > I never heard anything against this -- can I go ahead?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jason
>
> Yes. 4 weeks should be enough.
>
> Casper

Hi!
Vote Go for 0.2.7 in 4 weeks and feature freeze at anytime you all like.
James

[Robert Köpferl]

If I may coalesce:

A 0.3 release is not to think of, since we devoted the 0.3 to a more 
feature rich version.

So another 0.2.* release is appropriate, especially since 0.2.6 is a bad 
release wich is in some terms buggier than 0.2.5.

However, this is just a bad point in time for a release due to the 
Headers. Some time inbevore the branch would help, however.

Asides from that a really small incease could reflect our shame. Which 
is however too small or just ridiculus.
--> An alternative (to express our shame) would be to just release and 
not to anounce (I will not press the sf-button) the release.

Conclusion:
So a branch will occour within let's say the next 2 weeks to have ROS 
0.2.7 (our suggested next ver) fixed and built within another 2 weeks.

This is what I would do. What do you think about?

R F C !

Jason Filby wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I think we should just post an announcement on reactos.com that the
> next release will be 0.2.7 and will be released in approx x weeks.
>
> How long until we can feature freeze for 0.2.7? This should see the
> branch stabilize enough after all the current header changes - that
> should be enough. I'd rather not go adding a 4th number to our
> revision - 0.2.7 is already so small a number.
>
> Thanks
> Jason
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Ge van Geldorp]

> From: Robert Köpferl
>
> Asides from that a really small incease could reflect our 
> shame. Which is however too small or just ridiculus.
> --> An alternative (to express our shame) would be to just release and
> not to anounce (I will not press the sf-button) the release.

Just a datapoint: the 0.2.6 branch was created at r14154. We're now at
r16251. That means that in the last 3 months we have created an incredible
amount of changes, about 2100. That's 1/7th of all the changes between 1997
and 2005! Now, not every change is user-visible and some of the changes are
even regressions, but still, I'm not ashamed to bring out a new release when
this much work has been done.
> Conclusion:
> So a branch will occour within let's say the next 2 weeks to have ROS 
> 0.2.7 (our suggested next ver) fixed and built within another 2 weeks.
>
> This is what I would do. What do you think about?

I agree completely.

Gé van Geldorp.

[mail.comcast.net]

Yeah, but how many changes are major features being implemented?  For 
instance, the header reorganization doesn't really add to compatibility, 
and in some cases may actually cause regressions, etc.

Richard

Ge van Geldorp wrote:
> > From: Robert Köpferl
> >
> > Asides from that a really small incease could reflect our 
> > shame. Which is however too small or just ridiculus.
> > --> An alternative (to express our shame) would be to just release and
> > not to anounce (I will not press the sf-button) the release.
>
> Just a datapoint: the 0.2.6 branch was created at r14154. We're now at
> r16251. That means that in the last 3 months we have created an incredible
> amount of changes, about 2100. That's 1/7th of all the changes between 1997
> and 2005! Now, not every change is user-visible and some of the changes are
> even regressions, but still, I'm not ashamed to bring out a new release when
> this much work has been done.
> > Conclusion:
> > So a branch will occour within let's say the next 2 weeks to have ROS 
> > 0.2.7 (our suggested next ver) fixed and built within another 2 weeks.
> >
> > This is what I would do. What do you think about?
>
> I agree completely.
>
> Gé van Geldorp.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[mail.comcast.net]

I mean, don't get me wrong, i'm all for an 0.2.7 release, but you can 
have all the commits in the world but that means nothing.

mail.comcast.net wrote:
> Yeah, but how many changes are major features being implemented?  For 
> instance, the header reorganization doesn't really add to 
> compatibility, and in some cases may actually cause regressions, etc.
>
> Richard
>
> Ge van Geldorp wrote:
> > > From: Robert Köpferl
> > >
> > > Asides from that a really small incease could reflect our shame. 
> > > Which is however too small or just ridiculus.
> > > --> An alternative (to express our shame) would be to just release and
> > > not to anounce (I will not press the sf-button) the release.
> >
> > Just a datapoint: the 0.2.6 branch was created at r14154. We're now at
> > r16251. That means that in the last 3 months we have created an 
> > incredible
> > amount of changes, about 2100. That's 1/7th of all the changes 
> > between 1997
> > and 2005! Now, not every change is user-visible and some of the 
> > changes are
> > even regressions, but still, I'm not ashamed to bring out a new 
> > release when
> > this much work has been done.
> > > Conclusion:
> > > So a branch will occour within let's say the next 2 weeks to have 
> > > ROS 0.2.7 (our suggested next ver) fixed and built within another 2 
> > > weeks.
> > >
> > > This is what I would do. What do you think about?
> >
> > I agree completely.
> >
> > Gé van Geldorp.
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[waldo alvarez]

Hi:
> 0.3 is meant to be the big bang release where users are blown away, not
> minor releases. To take Alex's earlier comparison, the Linux kernel often
> jumps minor releases (2.6.*) with no obvious improvements. You generally
> have to read the changelog to see what has changed (and if it's worth you
> upgrading)
> Again, my point is; if we're not going to do anymore 0.2.* releases, then we
> could be in for a long wait before networking is at a stage which meets the
> 0.3 criteria.
> Ged.

I think that a release right before 0.3 would be good to have enough
testing (at least 2 months) and freeze it for a while only correcting
bugs. And of course follow the right secuence of alpha beta release
candidate and release with enought time. Because I think the process
takes very little time for ROS when it happens. Well a branch could be
a possibility too.

Regards
Waldo