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

[Murphy, Ged (Bolton)]

Robert k. wrote:

>   
>  
>  Hi,
>  let's put it this way: I have no problem in doing an 
>  intermediate release. NEither idealistic nor by work. For my 
>  unterstanding, releases are time driven, not feature driven. 
>  So you're currently not feeling good for having a release 
>  build? I asked for a release one month ago, but I have to 
>  admit, not inbetween, anymore. So if not more people are 
>  worrying, I think we should have a try ???
>  
>  
>  WaxDragon said:
> >   I've been asking for a intermediate release
> > for a month now, and 
> >  frankly now is not a good time.  HEAD is going to need a  
>  while (again) 
> >   after all of these header changes.  After we got
> > rbuild stabilized 
> >  would have been a good time, but several of the developers  
>  are stuck 
>  > in this "No more 0.2.x releases" mentality.
>  >
>  > We are not going to get to 0.3.0 anytime soon unless someone other 
>  > than arty works on networking (or we change the requirements for 
>  > 0.3.0).
>  >
>  > WD 

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 agree with WD about networking. Arty is busy with the new job, and nobody
else is working on networking. Considering networking is meant to be the key
feature for the 0.3 release, then either people need to start working on
networking or the 0.3 goalposts need to be changed.

I would be more than happy to help with networking in any way I can, however
I'm not yet up to a standard to get my hands dirty with the core
infrastructure. With a mentor, and a little guidance, maybe myself and a few
others might be of more use in this area. (this is where I'm aiming)

Regards,
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
postmaster(a)exideuk.co.uk 
<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

[Ge van Geldorp]

>   From: Murphy, Ged (Bolton)
>
>  I agree with WD about networking. Arty is busy with the new 
>  job, and nobody else is working on networking. Considering 
>  networking is meant to be the key feature for the 0.3 
>  release, then either people need to start working on 
>  networking or the 0.3 goalposts need to be changed. 
I don't see why the 0.3 goalposts would need to be changed. As long as we're
not comfortable saying "basic TCP/IP networking is implemented now" we just
call the release 0.2.x instead of 0.3.

Gé van Geldorp.

[Vit Herman]

Ge van Geldorp wrote:
> >  From: Murphy,
> > Ged (Bolton)
> >
> > I agree with WD about networking. Arty is busy with the new 
> > job, and nobody else is working on networking. Considering 
> > networking is meant to be the key feature for the 0.3 
> > release, then either people need to start working on 
> > networking or the 0.3 goalposts need to be changed. 
>  
>  
>  I don't see why the 0.3 goalposts would need to be changed. As long as we're
>  not comfortable saying "basic TCP/IP networking is implemented now" we just
>  call the release 0.2.x instead of 0.3.
>   
I must agree. Saying "We're gonna release 0.3 as soon as we have TCP/IP 
networking reasonably complete" is much better than saying "We're gonna 
release 0.3  1st July 2005" - That's a nonsense, a MS-ish way of doing 
things.

Somebody pointed out that more frequent releases keep public interest in 
reactos - yes, that's true, but IMHO people will be at least 
disappointed by the fact that there's a release, say, every 3 months, 
but there's little or no visible progress between them. Don't 
misunderstand me - I know you guys are working hard, but unless this 
work produces some visible progress, there's no point in releasing 0.3. 
And the progress that is visible for you isn't necessarily visible for BFUs.

Vit Herman

[Craig Talbert]

On 6/22/05, Murphy,  Ged (Bolton) <MurphyG(a)cmpbatteries.co.uk> 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. :)

[WaxDragon]

On 6/22/05, Craig Talbert <craig.talbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>   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. :) 
Maybe you should start reading ros-svn.  We are approching 2000
commits since 0.2.6.  While I won't claim that all of those commits
were "progress", there is progress being made.  Don't even think that
we are trying to misrepresent the "progress" of the project, almost
every day we are in there hacking on stuff.

I don't see how trust comes into this situation.  The fact this is an
open source project gives me all the trust I need.  What are you, a
debian user? ;0)

WD

-- 
<kjk_hyperion> I have a penchant for mischief, property damage and stalking
<kjk_hyperion> and cheesecake, of course