ok you won :)
so we will go beta.

Now we will not open 1.2 right now because we can just take the time to do 1.1 nice and there are plenty of stuff to do
around 1.1 and to prepare in the calm 1.1

Stef

On May 17, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:

>>> But now we should go beta=releaseCandidate1
>>>
>>>
>> No, I don't agree. That's not the same. One thing is beta and another thing
>> is a release candidate.
>
> While I appreciate that Stef wants to push out 1.1. quickly
> since there are so many good things in this release we
> should clearly start to build a beta, test it and then
> (based on these results) have a first release candidate.
>
> Pharo core is stable - but is pharo-dev already? We really
> should have a beta. We all know: Pharo = core + packages
>
>> Imagine you are going to download a software which is in RELEASE CANDIDATE
>> and has a lot of problems and bugs....is not good for marketing.
>
> especially if the website says: "Pharo is an attractive platform to build and deploy mission critical Smalltalk applications."
>
> So +1 for Mariano here
>
> Mariano: what is the state of building a dev image from
> the core for 1.1.? Last time I tried the ConfigurationOfPharo with 1.1.
> I run into the condense changes problem - which I thing was fixed now.
>
> Thx
> T.
> --
> GRATIS f�r alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
> Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project