[Bf-committers] Roadmap 2.5 proposal

[Shaul Kedem]

I also support option B. Knowing when things are out of beta: 1. all
is working as it should. 2. no show stoppers in bug tracker after
releasing RC(s) and 3. as LetterRip said, real-life (Durian?) work has
been done with it.

As for the plan, It is very high level (to the point of not knowing
what is going into 2.51 other than bmesh) and the timeline seems to be
very intense,

shul

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Tom M <letterrip at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>