[bt-devel] BibleTime 2.0.alpha2 is released

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Thanks for the feedback! And packaging.

Jonathan Marsden wrote:
> Going direct from alpha to release??  That would be pretty radical!

As Gary also said: no, but we should have still some alphas/betas.

> 
> I'm not Eeli or Gary, but I think the following are still needed:
> 
>  * A public beta test period in which some defined number of users run
> the beta for a defined amount of test time within a given period, and
> report their results (example beta test definition: 20 different users
> will test the BibleTime 2.0 beta1 release, each user will install the
> product and use it for at least 30 minutes between 01 April 2009 and 15
> April 2009; at least 15 of these users will report their use by email to
> bt-devel, including reports of any bugs or issues found).
> 

Very good, but considering the realities we have seen, this will never 
happen. People just don't report enough - I don't know whether there are 
people using it or not.

>  * Probably a "release candidate" release that fixes whatever
> release-critical issues emerge from the beta testing.  Again with
> defined goals of number of users and amount of testing.
> 

My opinion is that if we still add features (Mag font config for 
example), we should stay in alpha. After that, one or two betas. A RC 
should have no such known bugs which are planned to be fixed before the 
final. However, we don't have a heavy release plan and probably we will 
move from the last beta directly to the final.

>  * Check all known bugs for any showstoppers (either known now or
> arising from beta testing).  For example, is the rather odd look of the
> themes other than the default one (simple) considered a showstopper for
> a final release?  This issue is still present on my machine here running
> BT 2.0 alpha2.

I think this is release critical.

> 
>  * Create and test installers for all available platforms (including
> Windows, if 2.0 is to be a Windows-capable release).  Is anyone building
>  and testing under OS X using Qt/Mac yet? :)
> 

We shouldn't release a 2.0 final for Windows if there is no good 
installer. Whether it prevents us from releasing 2.0 altogether is 
another matter.

>  * Update all documentation to reflect both new 2.0 features and new 2.0
> platform(s). (Trivial example: info such as "BibleTime can be used with
> other window managers such as Gnome, BlackBox, Fluxbox, OpenBox or
> Sawfish, providing the appropriate base libarires are already installed
> on your computer." is not really meaningful or helpful to Windows users,
> but is still present in the handbook, and 'libarires' is a typo).
> 

I agree that if we distribute it, it should be up to date.

> Lastly, it's a bit debatable to call this a release requirement, but I'd
> also suggest that it would be very much preferable if the code was known
> to build correctly under Windows using a free (libre) toolchain.  I'm
> still waiting on a description of the current MinGW toolchain setup
> process before looking any further at this... without one, I seem to
> just be going over ground others have already covered.  I don't know if
> anyone else has made any progress towards this?

It can't be a requirement unless someone succeeds in it. I just got a 
Windows XP laptop and am going to install VS Express.

 From now on we should start using the wiki "development plan" pages 
effectively. Now it has happened that Gary and I have been working on a 
same feature and half of the work has been futile. Please, Gary and 
others, edit the plan page (and the windows build page). Write there if 
you take some task or if you have some new task. Jonathan and other 
non-core-developers can add tasks, too. We will move or remove them if 
necessary.

I just renamed the "Next release" section to pertain to alpha3. Whenever 
  a new release is out or we change plans, we can change it. Let's take 
there all TODOs which need to be considered before the 2.0 final. You 
can add also links to the SourceForge bug database.

--Eeli Kaikkonen