[nSLUG] Jigdo File

Donald Teed dteed at artistic.ca
Wed Mar 5 11:04:14 AST 2003


On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Ben Armstrong wrote:

> and the bottom line to worry about.  You probably see many more conservative
> (< 1.0) release numbers in volunteer-run free software projects because
> developers are *honest* about their estimation of the completeness of the
> project.

I am going to go out on a limb and say they are wrong with their
versioning.  Less than 1.0 traditionally means beta.  Beta to some people
means new.  To me it means broken.  If they want to add more features, they
can always do so for 2.0, 3.0, etc.  We need some consistancy, and I don't
believe this has to be different for open source than for commercial.

My interpretation of the fear of using a number greater than .99999 is
that the volunteer group or developer doesn't want to take responsibility for
it.  I don't consider that conservative, but a lack of committment.
They want the relaxed approach of being able to say "that doesn't work
yet", or "this is just a first shot at the documentation" and not
have a committment to fix anything urgently or document it carefully.
After all it is just a hobby right?  Yes, commercial developers are
sometimes shoddy at committing to fix problems too, but at least they
make the initial claim that the software is robust and ready for
production use.

Given my experience with jigdo, I would say this is an example of software
that is being deployed in a production capacity and should really be
considered beta and an optional rather than required path for people to use.

Has anyone had better luck making ISO images for Woody with jigdo?






More information about the nSLUG mailing list