<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"Open </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Simulator code acceptance authority? "</span><br><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">:)</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Maxwell, Douglas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:douglas.b.maxwell@us.army.mil" target="_blank">douglas.b.maxwell@us.army.mil</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Classification: UNCLASSIFIED<br>
Caveats: NONE<br>
<br>
Is there a feature list somewhere that has been ratified by the Open<br>
Simulator code acceptance authority? That would be a good place to start<br>
for determining how far from "feature complete" the code is.<br>
<br>
v/r -douglas<br>
<br>
Douglas Maxwell, MSME<br>
Science and Technology Manager<br>
Virtual World Strategic Applications<br>
U.S. Army Research Lab<br>
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)<br>
(c) <a href="tel:%28407%29%20242-0209" value="+14072420209">(407) 242-0209</a><br>
NEW DoD Email: <a href="mailto:Douglas.Maxwell3.civ@mail.mil">Douglas.Maxwell3.civ@mail.mil</a><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@opensimulator.org">opensim-dev-bounces@opensimulator.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@opensimulator.org">opensim-dev-bounces@opensimulator.org</a>] On Behalf Of Tom<br>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:50 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:opensim-dev@opensimulator.org">opensim-dev@opensimulator.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Beta?<br>
<br>
I know this is an old subject. Feature complete is feature complete for a<br>
particular release not for evermore. The point of a new releases is that<br>
they will contain new new features, changes etc. or else why bother with a<br>
new release.<br>
<br>
Alpha and beta are normally related to levels of testing e.g. internal<br>
inhouse testing (alpha), released to the wider world ( beta) for a period of<br>
time before release. It gives an indication of the reliability and<br>
stability. Testing, especially beta testing can in some systems may be a<br>
judgement that a high level of stability has been achieved. This is as<br>
applicable to iterative development cycles as any others. The mere fact that<br>
people have been using this successfully in a production environment for so<br>
long suggests to me that the core of OpenSim is already stable and<br>
sufficiently bug free enough to be used in these environments.<br>
<br>
By saying it is alpha you are doing yourselves and all the core developers a<br>
great disservice. You are all better than should be proud of your<br>
achievements.<br>
<br>
Alpha software is saying "use with great care" it may be very buggy.<br>
OpenSim is far better than that. By being permanently at alpha (after 7<br>
years it seems so) it is also obscuring from users what can and cannot be<br>
used safely. Are you really saying to users it is not fit to use after 7<br>
years of development? Even beta is excessively cautious.<br>
<br>
I suggest that your use of alpha and beta is out of sync with the industry<br>
norm and is hence misleading users. If you apply the OpenSim standards would<br>
you still consider all the viewer code alpha, second life alpha?<br>
<br>
I am talking as someone with 15 years IT experience in software development<br>
and configuration management.<br>
<br>
Tom Willans BSc(Hons) MBCS CITP<br>
Chartered IT Professional<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12 Jun 2014, at 01:31, Frank Nichols <<a href="mailto:j.frank.nichols@gmail.com">j.frank.nichols@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
The problem I see is that there are a lot of grids forming - people<br>
and universities using OS and general "production" uses being made, all the<br>
while we are calling it Alpha. Alpha gives great deniability and the ability<br>
to say - don't use this in a production system. The reality is that people<br>
are. So...<br>
<br>
I suggest it is time (what about 7 years now?) that we/someone<br>
writes a specification that basically documents what OS is today, and call<br>
that the "spec" which then becomes maintained. Then move the code to Beta -<br>
meaning that it implements the specification but has bugs. Then we can focus<br>
on fixing the bugs so the spec "works" and adding new features to the spec<br>
that the dev's want to add. That way users will be able to do a little more<br>
planning than they can today.<br>
<br>
I expect it will take a while to write a spec, so maybe 0.9 would be<br>
a good goal to shoot for going beta?<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Shaun T. Erickson <<a href="mailto:ste@smxy.org">ste@smxy.org</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
From opensim-dev IRC chat, last September 25th (edited to<br>
leave out non-pertinent chatter):<br>
<br>
[17:24] <diva> justincc, ... are you ok with tagging this<br>
release as beta?<br>
[17:26] <justincc> diva: no - with these kinds of issues I'm<br>
unhappy with even not saying it's alpha. ...<br>
[17:26] <nebadon> we should probably mark a beta as 0.8<br>
[17:26] <nebadon> and not 0.7.6<br>
[17:27] <justincc> nebadon: beta is meaningless here -<br>
opensim is never going to be feature complete<br>
[17:28] <nebadon> I am not saying that is what we should<br>
definitively do, but say we were going to do that I think it should be 0.8<br>
for the beta, and I agree I dont think beta should happen right now<br>
[17:28] <smxy> It could be feature complete if there were<br>
more devs working on it.<br>
[17:29] <nebadon> while things have improved considerably<br>
[17:29] <nebadon> there is still a ton of broken stuff<br>
[17:29] <frnic> smxy, you need to have a specification to be<br>
feature complete.<br>
[17:29] <frnic> It is an evolving project, so doesn't have a<br>
specification.<br>
[17:30] <diva> and who ever said that the tag "beta" is<br>
associated with "feature complete"?<br>
[17:30] <frnic> industry general definition is beta is<br>
feature complete, bay be buggy.<br>
[17:30] <nebadon> well ya thats true, i dont think that<br>
either, i know i didnt say that :)<br>
[17:30] <lkalif> feature complete is nonsense some middle<br>
managers invented in the late 20th century<br>
[17:30] <frnic> I was a project manager for 30 years, I<br>
think I know that muchg - lol<br>
[17:30] <nebadon> haha<br>
[17:31] <AllenKerensky> ... just stick with revision #s and<br>
call some of the milestones heh<br>
[17:31] <lkalif> it has long been obsoleted and put to rest<br>
where it belongs<br>
[17:31] <nebadon> well one thing I would like to see happen<br>
before we go beta is have BulletSim be the default physics engine<br>
[17:31] <nebadon> and also work a bit better than it does<br>
now<br>
[17:31] <diva> that's not how it's used out there. It's used<br>
to denote "this is pretty good, but it still has issues".<br>
<br>
To my knowledge, and according to my logs (which are not<br>
100% complete), there's been no talk of this since, and 0.8.0 is on Release<br>
Candidate 3 and about to be released.<br>
<br>
So, when might OpenSim move to a beta status, and would it<br>
be a meaningless tag, as Justin claimed, or actually signify something and<br>
be a real milestone for the project?<br>
<br>
-ste<br>
<br>
(AKA Smxy (IRC) & Shaun Emerald (in-world))<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org">Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
<blockedhttp://<a href="http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org">Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org</a><br>
<a href="http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
<blockedhttp://<a href="http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED<br>
Caveats: NONE<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org">Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org</a><br>
<a href="http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>