[Bf-committers] Roadmap 2.5 proposal

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi,

Can we define or agree on a good plan first please? :)

-Ton-

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation   ton at blender.org    www.blender.org
Blender Institute   Entrepotdok 57A  1018AD Amsterdam   The Netherlands

On 20 Sep, 2009, at 13:37, Wahooney wrote:

> How about:
>
> Blender 2.5 phase 0
> Blender 2.5 phase 1
> Blender 2.5 phase 2?
>
> Keith
>
> Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Anyhoo, I'd be fine with a 'beta' in a name, like
>>
>> 2.5 beta 0
>> 2.5 beta 1
>>
>> But still... how do you define when things go out of 'beta'? And, if
>> you can define this, then why not schedule and communicate that? And
>> won't you then find out that some parts of Blender always are "beta"
>> and other parts "stable"?
>>
>> So: let's first refine the planning? If we can get a good roadmap
>> realized, the naming of such releases/builds are mere details...
>>
>> -Ton-
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> --
>> Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation   ton at blender.org     
>> www.blender.org
>> Blender Institute   Entrepotdok 57A  1018AD Amsterdam   The  
>> Netherlands
>>
>> On 20 Sep, 2009, at 9:22, Matt Ebb wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 20/09/2009, at 4:44 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> While I dislike quibbling over version numbers and probably wont
>>>> change Ton's mind but calling this 2.5 seems a mistake to me.
>>>> - "So we call it 2.5 and then have to explain to people its not
>>>> quite ready"
>>>> Why do this?
>>>>
>>>> Why not call it 2.5 pr1, 2.5 pr2, That or beta1, beta2 etc.
>>>> preview release, beta, even RC (while incorrect) communicates better
>>>> this is something to test seriously but not fully wokring.
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> After trying to use 2.5 for a few things lately, it really becomes
>>> apparent how many roadblocks there are for actually using it to get
>>> work done.
>>>
>>> I think after all the hype, most people will be expecting something
>>> better than what we're going to provide, so it's really important to
>>> communicate this properly and clearly - you can't expect every user
>>> out there to have seen and understood this roadmap and naming system,
>>> which is really something for internal blender development, not
>>> something that the general public will get.
>>>
>>> Like cam says, some options are:
>>> A) we can call it 2.50 (and then have to explain that it's part of a
>>> bigger 2.5 series, and that it's really not a final release, and blah
>>> blah blah), which has a high potential for people to misunderstand/
>>> misinterpret/not even read lengthy explanations.
>>> B) or we can call it something obvious like "2.50 beta" or "test1" or
>>> "pr1" , which everyone immediately understands.
>>>
>>> I strongly support  B..
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>