Matthew Dillon wrote:
quoted text > :There's always the option of releasing a 1.12 version now (it's not like
> :there haven't been enough changes to justify a new release). The 2.0 release
> :is likely to get a lot of downloads, so I think shipping it with a pre-alpha
> :hammer is a waste of an opportunity to attract more people. Not to mention
> :that it's hard to put a time bound on this kind of development. So, let's
> :just admit that and ship 2.0 as soon as Matt declares it ready for beta
> :testing, regardless of what time of year it is. A real beta-state hammer
> :justifies a 2.0 release on its own IMHO. Also, this will let Matt work on
> :hammer without any tight deadlines.
> :
> :Aggelos
>
> Yes, and I've agonized over this very possibility. Maybe the thing
> to do is to poll the people on kernel@. HAMMER won't be ready for
> sure (things take however long they take), but the hardest part of it
> is working and stable and I'm just down to garbage collection and
> crash recovery. Crazily enough, that is what all the major surgery
> yesterday, and the continuing work, is about.
>
> So what do people think? Should this month's release be 1.12 or 2.0 ?
I vote for 2.0rc1. I've watched both Linus and BillG+UncleFester go through
many release cycles over the years, and I'd hate to see DragonFly duplicate
the Windows Vista debacle just to meet an arbitrary/imaginary deadline.
Bill has made billions by promising products he can't (and doesn't) deliver,
but those good-ole-days seem to be over now, thankfully!
