Short-term nALFS roadmap
haski at sezampro.yu
Sat Sep 20 07:10:54 PDT 2003
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:27:35AM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> >nALFS 2.0.0 would be way too high. Changing that number goes with
> >something like splitting the program into separate frontend and
> >backend (just an example), or something in that rank.
> Guess what's coming...fully libtoolized nALFS, which I haven't even
> listed in bugzilla yet :-) What we get out of this:
So are you suggesting 2.0.0 version for it then? I still think 1.2.0
would be more appropriate, considering past changes and how the
versions were incremented for them.
> >And if more P3 bugs are fixed before P2 ones (and the way Kevin
> >started working on them, there's a good chance of that happening :),
> >there is no reason not to release 1.1.9 soon after as well.
> Yeah, I find particular types of things more interesting to work on,
> instead of going by bug priority. I hope that's OK...
Of course, having fun is still my main reason for doing all this. :)
> just make sure that things that really, really need to be in the
> next release are mared appropriately and hopefully one of us will
> address them.
I'll try using the similar method LFS uses -- P1 for those that I
believe should go into next version, P2 for the version after it. But
that still doesn't mean we _really_ need to fix/implement it for that
version. Unless it's a major bug or something, when it would be a
good idea to deal with it ASAP.
More information about the alfs-discuss