>>>>> "DL" == David Lee <T.D.Lee@durham.ac.uk> writes:
DL> But this brings us full circle to the "release" question. We are not
DL> in a position to commit ourselves, and our employers' resources, to Mj2
DL> (including to such demonstrations) unless we can be reasonably
DL> confident that Mj2 is itself committed to us.
"Mj2" is only committed to anyone (whatever that means) as long as people
are committed to it. The software exists. It is there. It is
"released". We give it to you freely (under the terms of the license, of
Yes, I understand that some "official" "release" statement can act as a
motivating factor for _users_, since it would carry some implications about
the stability or feasibility for use of the software (even though we go to
a lot of effort to disclaim any responsibility for either). And that is
precisely why we haven't made such a statement.
DL> It is a covenant relationship (in the theological sense): Mj2 commits
DL> to us, and we in turn commit to it.
Mj2 cannot commit to you any more than a wrench can commit to you. It is a
piece of software, a tool. I could commit to you, but I'm not going to
unless you pay me. I'm committed to the software instead.
We could "release" Mj2 today and walk away tomorrow. You have no
guarantees (and _certainly_ not any contractual ones). Yet the software
DL> Until that happens, Roger's ideas (whether we think them good or bad is
DL> irrelevant) will not get the chance to prove (or disprove) themselves.
What does that mean? Are you trying to imply that if your standards of
"release" aren't met, all of our work and discussion is meaningless? If
so, you are very wrong.
And as I've already said, the main issue holding up a release (i.e. that
"official" announcement) in my eyes is me managing to finish bounce
handling and to get in a couple of incompatible changes that are better
done earlier than later). I don't know if Michael is planning any big work
any time soon; if not then we're reaching a stability plateau that provides
an ideal release point.