[Opensim-dev] Beta? (UNCLASSIFIED)
Frank Nichols
j.frank.nichols at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 17:49:05 UTC 2014
"Open Simulator code acceptance authority? "
:)
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Maxwell, Douglas <
douglas.b.maxwell at us.army.mil> wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> Is there a feature list somewhere that has been ratified by the Open
> Simulator code acceptance authority? That would be a good place to start
> for determining how far from "feature complete" the code is.
>
> v/r -douglas
>
> Douglas Maxwell, MSME
> Science and Technology Manager
> Virtual World Strategic Applications
> U.S. Army Research Lab
> Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
> (c) (407) 242-0209
> NEW DoD Email: Douglas.Maxwell3.civ at mail.mil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org
> [mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org] On Behalf Of Tom
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:50 AM
> To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Beta?
>
> I know this is an old subject. Feature complete is feature complete for a
> particular release not for evermore. The point of a new releases is that
> they will contain new new features, changes etc. or else why bother with a
> new release.
>
> Alpha and beta are normally related to levels of testing e.g. internal
> inhouse testing (alpha), released to the wider world ( beta) for a period
> of
> time before release. It gives an indication of the reliability and
> stability. Testing, especially beta testing can in some systems may be a
> judgement that a high level of stability has been achieved. This is as
> applicable to iterative development cycles as any others. The mere fact
> that
> people have been using this successfully in a production environment for so
> long suggests to me that the core of OpenSim is already stable and
> sufficiently bug free enough to be used in these environments.
>
> By saying it is alpha you are doing yourselves and all the core developers
> a
> great disservice. You are all better than should be proud of your
> achievements.
>
> Alpha software is saying "use with great care" it may be very buggy.
> OpenSim is far better than that. By being permanently at alpha (after 7
> years it seems so) it is also obscuring from users what can and cannot be
> used safely. Are you really saying to users it is not fit to use after 7
> years of development? Even beta is excessively cautious.
>
> I suggest that your use of alpha and beta is out of sync with the industry
> norm and is hence misleading users. If you apply the OpenSim standards
> would
> you still consider all the viewer code alpha, second life alpha?
>
> I am talking as someone with 15 years IT experience in software development
> and configuration management.
>
> Tom Willans BSc(Hons) MBCS CITP
> Chartered IT Professional
>
>
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 01:31, Frank Nichols <j.frank.nichols at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The problem I see is that there are a lot of grids forming - people
> and universities using OS and general "production" uses being made, all the
> while we are calling it Alpha. Alpha gives great deniability and the
> ability
> to say - don't use this in a production system. The reality is that people
> are. So...
>
> I suggest it is time (what about 7 years now?) that we/someone
> writes a specification that basically documents what OS is today, and call
> that the "spec" which then becomes maintained. Then move the code to Beta -
> meaning that it implements the specification but has bugs. Then we can
> focus
> on fixing the bugs so the spec "works" and adding new features to the spec
> that the dev's want to add. That way users will be able to do a little more
> planning than they can today.
>
> I expect it will take a while to write a spec, so maybe 0.9 would
> be
> a good goal to shoot for going beta?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Shaun T. Erickson <ste at smxy.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> From opensim-dev IRC chat, last September 25th (edited to
> leave out non-pertinent chatter):
>
> [17:24] <diva> justincc, ... are you ok with tagging this
> release as beta?
> [17:26] <justincc> diva: no - with these kinds of issues
> I'm
> unhappy with even not saying it's alpha. ...
> [17:26] <nebadon> we should probably mark a beta as 0.8
> [17:26] <nebadon> and not 0.7.6
> [17:27] <justincc> nebadon: beta is meaningless here -
> opensim is never going to be feature complete
> [17:28] <nebadon> I am not saying that is what we should
> definitively do, but say we were going to do that I think it should be 0.8
> for the beta, and I agree I dont think beta should happen right now
> [17:28] <smxy> It could be feature complete if there were
> more devs working on it.
> [17:29] <nebadon> while things have improved considerably
> [17:29] <nebadon> there is still a ton of broken stuff
> [17:29] <frnic> smxy, you need to have a specification to
> be
> feature complete.
> [17:29] <frnic> It is an evolving project, so doesn't have
> a
> specification.
> [17:30] <diva> and who ever said that the tag "beta" is
> associated with "feature complete"?
> [17:30] <frnic> industry general definition is beta is
> feature complete, bay be buggy.
> [17:30] <nebadon> well ya thats true, i dont think that
> either, i know i didnt say that :)
> [17:30] <lkalif> feature complete is nonsense some middle
> managers invented in the late 20th century
> [17:30] <frnic> I was a project manager for 30 years, I
> think I know that muchg - lol
> [17:30] <nebadon> haha
> [17:31] <AllenKerensky> ... just stick with revision #s and
> call some of the milestones heh
> [17:31] <lkalif> it has long been obsoleted and put to rest
> where it belongs
> [17:31] <nebadon> well one thing I would like to see happen
> before we go beta is have BulletSim be the default physics engine
> [17:31] <nebadon> and also work a bit better than it does
> now
> [17:31] <diva> that's not how it's used out there. It's
> used
> to denote "this is pretty good, but it still has issues".
>
> To my knowledge, and according to my logs (which are not
> 100% complete), there's been no talk of this since, and 0.8.0 is on Release
> Candidate 3 and about to be released.
>
> So, when might OpenSim move to a beta status, and would it
> be a meaningless tag, as Justin claimed, or actually signify something and
> be a real milestone for the project?
>
> -ste
>
> (AKA Smxy (IRC) & Shaun Emerald (in-world))
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
>
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> <blockedhttp://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> <blockedhttp://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20140612/273d287a/attachment.html>
More information about the Opensim-dev
mailing list