What is to be released to the world?

[Andrew Conkling]

On 6/6/06, Oblio <apa.chioara at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Joe Klemmer <klemmerj at webtrek.com> wrote:
> >         If it were my decision to make then yes, it is an accurate statement.
> > But then with the way the free software world works you often have code
> > that is technically still in a heavy development state being used in
> > production all over the place.  The definitions of alpha, beta, gamma &
> > production code have blurred to the point where the terms nearly have no
> > meaning.  Just sift through the packages in your favorite distro and see
> > how many have version numbers less than 1.0 to get an idea.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> As far as I can tell, most open source developers set a very high goal
> for 1.0, sometimes one that is VERY distant. Look at Inkscape: it's
> 1.0 release should have the full features (and even more), of Corel
> Draw (IIRC, Corel Draw is at its tenth release or something like
> that). Yet that doesn't mean that it's 0.43 release is a beta, it just
> has fewer features than its target.

I think what Joe is saying is that this no longer fits the
"original"/conventional definitions of production code.  If 0.43 isn't
a beta, why is it not >1.0?  I understand that lofty goals are part of
the game, but why not a long-term roadmap then?

(I've been doing what Inkscape has been doing with my own project and
it's hard for me to keep on track, and it was hard for a guy who was
helping me to know where I was going and when.)

That said, I think Xfce is doing a fine job of release timing,
production, and direction.  (See, this wasn't OT!)