[Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment

[Cor Nouws]

Michael Stahl wrote (06-12-11 13:20)
> On 03/12/11 18:27, Cor Nouws wrote:
>> Michael Meeks wrote (03-12-11 15:50)
>>
>>> 	Yes ! we have not branched yet; master will branch at the
>>> feature-freeze before B1 so we have:
>>>
>>> master -------- Beta0 -------\----------- crazy stuff ...
>>>                                 \
>>>                                  \----- Beta1 --- stabilisation - Beta2
>>>
>>> 	etc. :-
>> 	
>> Correct. While explaining the whole event to someone else, suddenly it
>> became clear to me it might be much clearer when we have another naming
>> scheme:
>>
>> master ----- Alpha1 -------\----------- crazy stuff ...
>>                               \
>>                                \----- Alpha2 --- stabilisation - Beta1
>>
>> The great advantage of this is, that people having some expectation on
>> what a beta1 is, will not be disappointed.
>> Also, the whole schedule will not change, only the naming will be
>> conform what people get offered.
>> Will be something that marketing is going to praise us for, isn't it?
>
> sounds most reasonable to me; i'd say that that calling some random
> revision on the dev branch that happens to build on all platforms a
> "beta0" is rather bad communication  :)

Especially when that random revision is preceded by an extreme load of 
commits ;-)

I have had the pleasure to do quite some work with various daily and 
local builds the last months and quite often without (big) problems.
(Of course I only use a sub set of all features).
So I am not at all pessimistic about the quality ... *once* the probably 
unavoidable build/merge/conflict problems after the freeze have been solved.

So yes, naming that supports communication to be conform what people 
expect, would be useful IMHO.

Regards,

-- 
  - Cor
  - http://nl.libreoffice.org