[Bf-committers] Roadmap 2.5 proposal

[Tom M]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> 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"?

I'd say when a group of users who are generally comfortable with using
Blender on the cutting edge (Blender 'hardcore'/'power' users) start
being comfortable using recent builds for 'real work'.

LetterRip



> 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
>