Re: [Libreoffice] [Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment

Cor Nouws píše v Út 06. 12. 2011 v 21:12 +0100:
> 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 ;-)

There were always many commits in master.

> 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.

Exactly. The big problems are often visible immediately. The one in
beta0 was slightly hiding.

Note that I wrote in all "beta0" announces:

--- cut ---
The main purpose of this build is to make sure that we are able to
produce usable builds in release configuration.
--- cut ---

It was not intended for wide functional testing. It helped to find
exactly the problems that it was supposed to find.

It is clear that we should have used the name "alphaX". Well, the plan
was public and nobody protested against the "beta0" name ;-)


> So I am not at all pessimistic about the quality ... *once* the probably 
> unavoidable build/merge/conflict problems after the freeze have been solved.

I am afraid that beta1 is going to be delayed by two days or so. We want
to make some testing before we build it.


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

Yes, we should have used "alpha" name instead of "beta0". We will take
it in mind when updating schedule for 3.6 release.


Best Regards,
Petr