On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 April 2011 14:56, Thomas Heller <thom.heller@googlemail.com> wrote:
More communication to the library developers would be appreciated!
I wrote an email suggesting that we should decide on a schedule quickly, I didn't receive a response for 5 days. That gives the opposite impression.
We proposed an alternative schedule ...
We worked hard to get Phoenix V3 ready for release within our proposed dates. There was neither conformal nor denial whether these dates were good.
I think I was pretty clear that nothing was happening.
... which apparently has been misinterpreted. So it was a misunderstanding on both sides. In any case, we tried hard to keep the deadline we proposed. But you are right ... apart from our queries there wasn't anything else.
And suddenly the current state is considered not release worthy ... I am disappointed by this information policy.
A release takes time to prepare. At least a month given the desire for longer beta periods. Since we haven't started, it's unlikely that we've got enough time for a release before boostcon.
I would like to see at least a beta version of 1.47 before boostcon so people who are listening to talks can actually download and try the code we are presenting.
This is the first time I've heard that, I was under the impression that it could wait for the next release cycle, which would be after boostcon.
Right, its the first time you hear, because we waited (like you suggested) for the next officially proposed release schedule. Which didn't came until someone else asked. Additionaly, if you read our proposed schedule again, you might notice that it would have been just in time for boostcon. The part about having it in the release cycle would have been the back plan if you, the release managers would have said: "Ok let us release on time." So, if I had known that the schedule would have been postponed so long ... it would have saved me a lot of trouble. So, who is responsible for making the schedule?