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 ?
> 
> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon 
> 					<dillon@backplane.com>

Neither.

1.2X wherein HAMMER fs is 'experimental'

- With an allowance for 1.3X and HAMMER fs 'stable' (as in does not 
break, crash the OS, or lose data) if not yet fast. Let us not have a 
parallel to Reiserfs troubles.

I'd like to see 2.0 reserved for 'ready for prime time'. i.e. industrial 
strength stability if not (yet/ever) a speed champ on fs or SMP issues.

JM2CW - but we are having to convert servers from <another>BSD to <a 
different>BSD 'coz - for servers - performance can be addressed with 
hardware. Stability only with hours of our lives. And we grow weary of 
chasing fragile patches.

Bill