Il 26/11/2014 09:50, Sven Kieske ha scritto:
On 26/11/14 09:31, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
If no objections will be raised, the proposed changes [2] will be accepted.
I fear I got an objection:
quote:
* Alpha release should come after feature freeze Nothing more to say about it
I really think you are twisting the way what is commonly known as an "alpha":
from wikipedia: "[..]The alpha phase usually **ends** with a feature freeze[..]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_software#Alpha emphasis added by me.
you are doing it the wrong way: first release an alpha, than make a feature freeze. _After_ feature freeze you can release a beta.
"The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software. At this time, the software is said to be **feature complete**." So if you mean alpha release requirements are: substantially complete and in a testable state enabled by default -- if so specified by the change And for feature freeze you mean: "no more changes in the feature because the feature is complete" I agree with you, feature freeze must be after alpha. what I was trying to describe with having feature freeze before alpha is that we must not have features included in the alpha release which are: - not substantially complete - not in a testable state such kind of features must not be in alpha release.
I really like this terminology and think it is commonly known and accepted and it works very well.
thoughts?
-- Sandro Bonazzola Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at redhat.com