0.6 ETA

djnr · Post by **djnr** » January 28th, 2003, 3:41 pm

djst wrote:Here's a few bold questions for you: Have the new name been chosen? If not, are there a few names that you or the developers are seriously considering or is the question totally left unanswered even for you guys?

Amen. The suspense is killing us (and probably the mozillazine server/database)

Erukian · Post by **Erukian** » January 28th, 2003, 5:36 pm

I don't think gpl projects really stick to their due dates at all.

I mean look a debian. Ouch

Or even look at gentoo. That has to be the most technically advanced linux system in existence and they hoped to have 1.4 featuring gcc3.2 out the door in september. Thank god the have some sense like debian and not release a horrible version. *cough* redhat7 *cough*

In gentoo i compiled mozilla w/o the mail/newsreader/irc/composer to give it a good performance boost. Then phoenix .1 hit the fans and ive been all over it like a load of crap.

The nice thing about gpl projects is there is usually no corporate pressure to release a product, this stops crap code from getting released because the coder wants to be speedy.

David James · Post by **David James** » January 29th, 2003, 7:07 am

Erukian wrote:I don't think gpl projects really stick to their due dates at all.

I mean look a debian. Ouch

Come again? Debian does not have defined due dates, so it can't miss them. It's released when the release managers determine that it is stable and *secure* enough to release.

wget · Post by **wget** » January 29th, 2003, 7:37 am

Erukian wrote:I don't think gpl projects really stick to their due dates at all.

Closed-sourced development always delivers promptly on time. Oh, wait a minute... it hardly doesn't. :roll:

Singling out GPL projects and saying that they have problems with a deadline is just FUD. Most of the time Open software doesn't even have one.

Erukian wrote:I mean look a debian. Ouch

What about it? The latest Stable was released in the middle of December, 2002. If that's not fresh enough for you, feel free to try Testing (or Unstable if you like living on the edge).

Erukian wrote:The nice thing about gpl projects is there is usually no corporate pressure to release a product, this stops crap code from getting released because the coder wants to be speedy.

At least you got one thing right.

agamid · Post by **agamid** » January 29th, 2003, 7:40 am

why so anxious to get the 0.6? if you want the latest changes, you can get the nightlies... or compile from cvs, which is what I do anyway, even if 0.6 were out.

I know 0.6 will come with some sort of "guarantee" that the bugs they attempted to tackle will be squashed, but then again, they don't try to fix all the bugs in phoenix. you can figure out which bugs you don't like, look them up in bugzilla, then track them yourselves and install when they are dead.

izorg · Post by **izorg** » January 29th, 2003, 8:20 am

where can i download the unfixed version of the .6?

Post by **tve** » January 29th, 2003, 8:23 am

izorg wrote:where can i download the unfixed version of the .6?

the latest 0.5 (not yet 0.6) nightly can be downloaded here:
http://komodo.mozilla.org/pub/phoenix/n ... est-trunk/

izorg · Post by **izorg** » January 29th, 2003, 11:02 am

Hi, twolegged Freak and thanks for your quick response.

well, I allready know that source for .5-versions.
But mustn't there be an early .6-development-release??? How could one else know any bugs, if it wouldn't allready be coded?

wget · Post by **wget** » January 29th, 2003, 11:10 am

izorg wrote:But mustn't there be an early .6-development-release?

It doesn't get more bleeding edge than that (unless you grab the source from CVS and compile it yourself). I guess you could call the current code some sort of 0.6 beta.

AkiAki007 · Post by **AkiAki007** » January 29th, 2003, 11:13 am

Erukian wrote:I don't think gpl projects really stick to their due dates at all.

I mean look a debian. Ouch

Or Windows 2002, I mean Windows .Net, I mean Windows 2003 Server, I mean Windows 2003 .Net Server...errr...

I think that proves the point about proprietary code being released on time.

As for GPL software, most of them don't have a deadline, and if they did, most of them won't adhere to it simply because there usually is no money funding the programming, so often things happen and they don't make it. But one thing is for sure. It's free and generally works when released. (referring to debian, not redhat or mandrake, etc). Using a .0 release of RedHat, IMO is stupid, but other releases like Slackware and debian and gentoo are right on the money with what they do...so what if they take a long time to release something, ifyou want it that bad, just go to unstable - it's much more stable than most of the other things i run :-P

/me just upgraded to unstable about 2 weeks ago, only problem was that my mouse got reconfiged, but i fixed that in a couple of jiffies...

seb · Post by **seb** » January 29th, 2003, 1:41 pm

izorg wrote:But mustn't there be an early .6-development-release??? How could one else know any bugs, if it wouldn't allready be coded?

That's what nightly builds are for :)
0.6 will be a build just like every other nightly build, but its release will mean that all bugs targeted to "0.6" will be fixed.
Current nightly builds are pre-0.6 versions (in fact, each time a milestone is released, all the nightly that come after are pre-TheNextMilestoneVersionNumber versions).

izorg · Post by **izorg** » February 1st, 2003, 11:18 am

@... all, who answered my question: Thank you

I got the idea, because I have the feling, that new features are primary included in new milestones.
Greetings, Izorg

0.6 ETA

Re: 0.6 ETA