BlackBox Framework Center

As this whole discussion has been titled 'Starting point for new Center Release' I believe that should also be the subject of the vote.

If the intention of this vote is to fix the starting point for the new center release then
the text
"The first Center Release of the BBF should be"
should be changed to
"The starting point for the first Center Release of the BBF should be".

- Josef

OK. So currently I do not see a way how I can change the title. The board software either doesn't permit this, or I am too stupid ;(.

ReneK wrote:OK. So currently I do not see a way how I can change the title. The board software either doesn't permit this, or I am too stupid ;(.

As admin you has rights for edit messages, so just edit yours first message in the thread.

ReneK wrote:

Ivan Denisov wrote:Rene, please, change the vote question for discard misinterpretations. Also I think that everybody prefer open voting to see who are not voted yet, looking each time in database is abusing me. I added this feature in the poll options.

Please rephrase. I do not understand what you want me to do.

I meant this option:

How about "First center release after OMI 1.6"

DGDanforth wrote:How about "First center release after OMI 1.6"

I don't understand what you mean. OMI 1.6 is one of the candidates for the starting point. The first centre release is just a figment of our imagination at this point in time.

Also 1.7 is not precise enough to identify a Helmut Zinn version - as far as I am aware there have been at least three 1.7 versions released so far. On the CPC website the filename of the current one is B2014.0327 (presumably a date?) and it is called 1.7-RC1. I would prefer to see a final release rather than a release candidate as a starting point.

cfbsoftware wrote:

DGDanforth wrote:How about "First center release after OMI 1.6"

I don't understand what you mean. OMI 1.6 is one of the candidates for the starting point. The first centre release is just a figment of our imagination at this point in time.

Also 1.7 is not precise enough to identify a Helmut Zinn version - as far as I am aware there have been at least three 1.7 versions released so far. On the CPC website the filename of the current one is B2014.0327 (presumably a date?) and it is called 1.7-RC1. I would prefer to see a final release rather than a release candidate as a starting point.

I was trying to clarify the issue by removing OMI 1.6 from the list of candidates. It (OMI 1.6) is already posted on our web site.

Good point about 1.7-RC1.1. That version should be entered into our database for 'behind the scenes' analysis by the center members before a reworked and agreed upon version is considered our first official release. What you have shown is that our vote for a first release is premature and that we need to have a 'process' in place through which any candidate must pass before release. Call that process 'candidate analysis' (by all members of the center)
-Doug

DGDanforth wrote:I was trying to clarify the issue by removing OMI 1.6 from the list of candidates. It (OMI 1.6) is already posted on our web site.

OK - I see. Yes - it could be considered to be a 'de facto' first Centre Release. My understanding is that the question we are currently trying to answer is: should it be the base software on which to start development on a 'Centre Release' which is different from all other currently available releases, or should that base software be Helmut Zinn's 1.7 Final release (release date to be determined) or the OberonCore release (is that a final release)?

cfbsoftware wrote: or should that base software be Helmut Zinn's 1.7 Final release (release date to be determined)

Since Helmut is now a center member I would think he would open up the process by which he has generated his release candidates and allow all of us to agree or modify (suggest modification) to what he has. All of that would be part of moving from a 'release candidate' to a final release.