Re: Euphoria open source update?
Jason Gade wrote:
> Robert Craig wrote:
>
>> Matt Lewis wrote:
>>> Not to rush you or anything, Rob, but....um...how's it coming along? Not
>>> that I'm excited or anything...
>>
>> I should have a release available in less than a week.
>> As I get closer to releasing it, I keep finding tiny
>> things that need to be adjusted to fit the new
>> free and open model. Also, I've decided to call it 3.0.0,
>> rather than 3.0 alpha. The "alpha", "beta", "official"
>> system of the past doesn't make much sense anymore.
>> I expect we'll have more frequent releases (3.0.1, 3.0.2, ...),
>> and we won't be aiming at some sort of perfect "official" release.
There is no perfect thing in this world anyway. 
However, I think it would make sense to make a differce between
preliminary versions, and stable versions. Most other software
products that I know make this difference, too.
I would use the newest preliminary version privately, when I want to
try out the new features, and help with finding bugs and making
suggestions for improvement. But at work, or in another context where
reliability is important, I would use the stable version. So denoting
the difference between preliminary and stable versions does make sense
IMHO.
>> The thing will be constantly improving in small increments
>> and will have a quicker feedback loop from users regarding bugs etc.
>>
>> I've created a tentative license. It will be in the download package
>> and you can also read it here:
>>
>> http://www.rapideuphoria.com/License.txt
>>
>> If you see any serious problems with it let me know.
>> I could still change it. It's a very generous license,
>> but I really can't see any closed source group taking
>> advantage of us. Also, I want people to be able to
>> add their own Binder/shrouder encryption, and keep it closed source.
>> I also want a license that encourages people to use Euphoria and
>> not get scared away, or turned off, by reading a long
>> threatening legal document.
>
> I think that it sounds pretty good. I think it could be modified if you ever
> see any threat from other sources. I don't think that you are very worried
> about
> that though; you have been releasing the binaries as public domain for a very
> long time now.
>
> The only thing I would request is making either the second or third digit
> denote
> whether the version is "testing" or "stable" like Linux does/used to do. That
> is, it used to be with Linux that if the second digit was odd then it was a
> testing version and if it was even then it was a stable version.
>
> Maybe invert that, since it would be weird to start the 3.0.x series with
> 3.1.x
> instead. Or maybe the third digit could denote testing/stable depending on
> whether
> it was even or odd.
On principle, I agree (see above).
However, using odd and even numbers to denote whether a version is
"testing" or "stable" is not self-explanatory, and therefore not
understandable by newbies. So I think a short describtion such as
"stable" or "unstable" should be added for utmost clarity.
Regards,
Juergen
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
