Re: HAMMER update 06-Feb-2008

[Maslan <maslanbsd@xxxxxxxxx>]

1.12

On Feb 9, 2008 11:51 PM, Robert r3tex Luciani <rluciani@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > :There's always the option of releasing a 1.12 version now (it's not like
> > :there haven't been enough changes to justify a new release). The 2.0 release
> > :is likely to get a lot of downloads, so I think shipping it with a pre-alpha
> > :hammer is a waste of an opportunity to attract more people. Not to mention
> > :that it's hard to put a time bound on this kind of development. So, let's
> > :just admit that and ship 2.0 as soon as Matt declares it ready for beta
> > :testing, regardless of what time of year it is. A real beta-state hammer
> > :justifies a 2.0 release on its own IMHO. Also, this will let Matt work on
> > :hammer without any tight deadlines.
> > :
> > :Aggelos
> >
> >     Yes, and I've agonized over this very possibility.  Maybe the thing
> >     to do is to poll the people on kernel@.  HAMMER won't be ready for
> >     sure (things take however long they take), but the hardest part of it
> >     is working and stable and I'm just down to garbage collection and
> >     crash recovery.  Crazily enough, that is what all the major surgery
> >     yesterday, and the continuing work, is about.
> >
> >     So what do people think?  Should this month's release be 1.12 or 2.0 ?
> >
> >                                       -Matt
> >                                       Matthew Dillon
> >                                       <dillon@backplane.com>
>
> 1.12
>
> --
> Robert Luciani
> Chalmers University of Technology, SWE
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> http://death.olf.sgsnet.se:8080/public.key
>



-- 
System Programmer
--
I'm Searching For Perfection,
So Even If U Need Portability U've To Use Assembly ;-)
--
http://libosdk.berlios.de