Comments on: What will it take for more releases of R2?
REBOL Technologies

Comments on: What will it take for more releases of R2?

Carl Sassenrath, CTO
REBOL Technologies
24-Mar-2009 22:00 GMT

Article #0403
Main page || Index || Prior Article [0402] || Next Article [0404] || 9 Comments || Send feedback

I've read a few users asking when they'll see a new R2 release. With R3 so high on the priority list, R2 changes are in the background.

But, my answer to the question is really: it depends on you. Here's why: When it comes to R2 releases, 90% of my time is spent on testing. It's because I'm the "final filter." You might care about a specific bug or change, but I've got to care about everything. I can't release a broken version.

Do I think it's possible to solve this problem? Yes. If you want to discuss it, goto #35 in R3 Chat. Essentially, we need one really dedicated "R2 release manager" -- someone to replace me on it. (I'll just be a SW engineer on some of the code.) That person will organize everything about the release, including getting it tested, bug processing, documentation, announcements, distros, etc.

Let me say one more thing: There will be some strict limits to what we can do in R2. A lot of what R3 does cannot be duplicated in R2, and that's why there is an R3. The priority of its release does not change.

9 Comments

Comments:

Brian Hawley
24-Mar-2009 16:26:46
Adding a REBOL 2 project to CureCode would help - it's much better than RAMBO, IMO.
RobertS
24-Mar-2009 17:50:55
Are we not quite close with 2.7.7 at this time?
Goldevil
25-Mar-2009 6:47:09
What are the main objectives of a new release of R2 ? Bug fixes, increasing R3 compatibility...

IMHO, I prefer a maximum compatibility with R3 even if some features are not fully implemented (dictionnary...). It will certainly helps for migrating from R2 to R3.

Brian Hawley
25-Mar-2009 8:54:40
R3 is not backwards compatible with R2, so we don't want R3 compatibility in R2 by default since it would break most existing R2 code. We should limit to compatible bugfixes only.

If you want forward compatibility, use R2-Forward.

Paul
25-Mar-2009 9:46:21
The only reason I would want continued R2 development was if R3 were going to have a more restrictive license than R2. If that is not the case then I see no reason we should waste time on it and put that much more effort into R3. I have been pleased with the buzz of activity around R3 lately.
Luca
25-Mar-2009 11:41:33
I'd say you better concentrate on finishing Rebol 3. After that, it'll be good for Rebol to have more evangelists that help in getting it known more than it is now, in the IT industry. I'm sure a marketing strategy will also help. Carl, u DO know how important a good marketing strategy must be, to the success of an innovative product, as u've experienced the lack of it eons ago.

Brian Tiffin
25-Mar-2009 17:23:42
I vote for Brian Hawley as Release Manager, "Left Handed Right Hand man" and all round REBOL lieutenant.
Brian Hawley
30-Mar-2009 11:06:12
I'd have to check with work first - I write REBOL 2 code as my full-time job. Being a release manager could take time, if you don't do it right. Let me see.
Maarten
18-Apr-2009 6:02:52
We know I did it before and I'm sure I can fit this into my schedule and make the work benefit as well.

I don't do the R3 chat though, I haven't got the time for that (to me it's an efficient but yet another channel). We can aks a well-known project management web service if we can use that.

Post a Comment:

You can post a comment here. Keep it on-topic.

Name:

Blog id:

CS-0403


Comment:


 Note: HTML tags allowed for: b i u li ol ul font p br pre tt blockquote
 
 

This is a technical blog related to the above topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, irrelevant links, advertisements, spams, personal attacks, politics, religion, etc.

Updated 24-Nov-2017   -   Copyright Carl Sassenrath   -   WWW.REBOL.COM   -   Edit   -   Blogger Source Code