From: Daniel Stenberg (Daniel.Stenberg@haxx.nu)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2000 - 01:00:57 CDT
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Peter C. McCluskey wrote:
> Does this mean the code freeze is over?
My personal opinion/rant:
I thought the code freeze would be good to sort the last bugs out and do a
first non-beta 2.0-release. The code freeze would not last longer than maybe
a month or so to sort out the big remaining bugs.
Now, time passes by and I can't see that we can maintain the freeze. This is
an open project, I can't see how we can maintain a non-acceptance for new
material this long, it will be a hard stroke for innovation and it'll make
the project stall more than I feel it should.
I've personally already violated the code freeze by adding the 'spamprotect'
option (although that is not yet in the CVS) which now has turned vital to
me.
Judging from the almost total absense of bug reports (except for the base64
decoder, and the mail-converter inside href links) there don't seem to be any
huge bugs left and I can't see how we can enforce a code freeze anymore.
How I would like to do? I'd check in all the changes we sit on right now,
test them with a b30 release and then release the 2.0. While doing that, we
accept new features and whatever that brings the project forward and in a
direction that people seem to agree on. We do have a CVS server, why not make
a branch? (we'd branch the b30-release so that we can fix that independently
of the head-branch, the b30 would go for 2.0 and the head for 2.1)
I don't indend to direct this to any individual, I am merely stating my
opinon.
--
Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.nu - +46-705-44 31 77
ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol