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