Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Feb 2009 18:31 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 348187
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
There's a big difference between not having a release and having one even if it's an Alpha because to have a release, you need to define your goals and then classify the bugs accordingly.
It's a big work but IMHO it's necessary as it creates a kind of 'common grounds'.
But one think that is necessary is to use a naming/numbering/description/release note of the release which is as descriptive as possible and *honest* for the user: a release name such as 'Haiku Alpha 0.x Developer preview' (adjust the number as needed but 1.0 means *stable*) would be fine..
The article talks about KDE, the reason why even now KDE4.0 is flamewar material is that the naming and the release note was dishonest, suggesting that it was ready for endusers when it wasn't which is something that we don't expect from Free Software developers.. (well that and that several distributions were assh... to select KDE4 as a default KDE desktop when it wasn't ready)