[Compcomm] Releases and packaging. And stuff.

[Danny Baumann]

Hi,

> I talked to David briefly about packaging and he's on board with your good, 
> bad, and ugly naming scheme. He indicated that he would like that he would 
> like to see "the requirement for -good package to be a lot more than bug-free 
> and that plugins should at least work properly to be included in the -ugly 
> package". 

Isn't that a bit - umm - unrealistic? I mean, how can a plugin be "a lot
more than bug free"? What are the additional expectations there? And is
there any piece of software on earth which is bug-free besides "Hello
world!"? ;-)

I would suggest the following criteria:
- good: plugins that have proven to be stable and working as expected;
no major bugs reported for a certain amount of time
- bad: plugins that are stable for the vast majority of people, might
contain smaller and/or hard-to-reproduce bugs
- ugly: plugins that compile, don't crash and roughly work as
advertised ;-)
- the rest should not be included IMO

> David also indicated that he is happy working with all the devs and thinks 
> that we are working together well on code issues. Despite the ugly forum 
> discussion, I think we are making a lot of progress in the areas that really 
> count.

That's nice :-)
And yes, I think we are making good progress code-wise lately.

Regards,

Danny