Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[Felix Zielcke]

The website currently says:

Currently under development, GRUB 2, has replaced what was formerly
known as GRUB (i.e. version 0.9x), which has, in turn, become GRUB
Legacy.

I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
comes before December)
Marco said already on IRC that he doestn't have an objection, but that I
should ask on list.

-- 
Felix Zielcke
Proud Debian Maintainer

Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[adrian15]

Felix Zielcke escribió:
> I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
> Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
> comes before December)
That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.

adrian15
-- 
Support free software. Donate to Super Grub Disk. Apoya el software 
libre. Dona a Super Grub Disk. http://www.supergrubdisk.org/index.php?pid=10

Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[Pavel Roskin]

On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:05 +0200, adrian15 wrote:
> Felix Zielcke escribió:
> > I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
> > Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
> > comes before December)
> That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.

I don't see anything wrong with being "under development".  I hope that
GRUB 2 will be under development even after the 1.97.  I don't see how
Debian can have any problem with that.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[Felix Zielcke]

Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 11:45 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:05 +0200, adrian15 wrote:
> > Felix Zielcke escribió:
> > > I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
> > > Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
> > > comes before December)
> > That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with being "under development".  I hope that
> GRUB 2 will be under development even after the 1.97.  I don't see how
> Debian can have any problem with that.
> 

Well to me it just sounds that isn't at all usable for an average user
and not that it's actively developed.
IIRC Colin Watson from the debian-installer team even told me this when
I asked first about changing the grub2 instead of grub-legacy template
in grub-installer. That says still that grub2 is experimental software.
But okay if we want to keep it and d-i team refuses to change that just
because of that part in the grub2 website, then I just accept that.

-- 
Felix Zielcke
Proud Debian Maintainer

Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 06:18:58PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 11:45 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:05 +0200, adrian15 wrote:
> > > That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.
> > 
> > I don't see anything wrong with being "under development".  I hope that
> > GRUB 2 will be under development even after the 1.97.

It's a bit like all those websites that say "under construction" - it's
just noise.

> Well to me it just sounds that isn't at all usable for an average user
> and not that it's actively developed.
> IIRC Colin Watson from the debian-installer team even told me this when
> I asked first about changing the grub2 instead of grub-legacy template
> in grub-installer. That says still that grub2 is experimental software.

I don't remember the exact conversation we had at the time, but I think
that template can be changed once Debian changes its default.

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]

Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[Robert Millan]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:45:35AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:05 +0200, adrian15 wrote:
> > Felix Zielcke escribió:
> > > I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
> > > Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
> > > comes before December)
> > That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with being "under development".  I hope that
> GRUB 2 will be under development even after the 1.97.  I don't see how
> Debian can have any problem with that.

It depends.  If we say GRUB 2 is "under development" but we don't say anything
about GRUB Legacy, people might think GRUB 2 is not ready.

I agree with Pavel, saying GRUB 2 is under development doesn't fail to the
truth, but then again there are many ways of saying the truth.  I think we
should make the website give a clear message that:

  a) GRUB Legacy is obsolete and we don't longer support it

  b) GRUB 2 is more mature than GRUB Legacy

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[Felix Zielcke]

Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 18:19 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:45:35AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:05 +0200, adrian15 wrote:
> > > Felix Zielcke escribió:
> > > > I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
> > > > Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
> > > > comes before December)
> > > That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.
> > 
> > I don't see anything wrong with being "under development".  I hope that
> > GRUB 2 will be under development even after the 1.97.  I don't see how
> > Debian can have any problem with that.
> 
> It depends.  If we say GRUB 2 is "under development" but we don't say anything
> about GRUB Legacy, people might think GRUB 2 is not ready.
> 
> I agree with Pavel, saying GRUB 2 is under development doesn't fail to the
> truth, but then again there are many ways of saying the truth.  I think we
> should make the website give a clear message that:
> 
>   a) GRUB Legacy is obsolete and we don't longer support it
> 
>   b) GRUB 2 is more mature than GRUB Legacy
> 

Good idea. I just think that I'm not good at proposing a good wording
for it.
And maybe we should wait untill 1.97 gets released before telling grub2
is more mature then grub-legacy.

-- 
Felix Zielcke
Proud Debian Maintainer

Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 03:25:26PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 18:19 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:45:35AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:05 +0200, adrian15 wrote:
> > > > Felix Zielcke escribió:
> > > > > I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
> > > > > Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
> > > > > comes before December)
> > > > That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.
> > > 
> > > I don't see anything wrong with being "under development".  I hope that
> > > GRUB 2 will be under development even after the 1.97.  I don't see how
> > > Debian can have any problem with that.
> > 
> > It depends.  If we say GRUB 2 is "under development" but we don't say anything
> > about GRUB Legacy, people might think GRUB 2 is not ready.
> > 
> > I agree with Pavel, saying GRUB 2 is under development doesn't fail to the
> > truth, but then again there are many ways of saying the truth.  I think we
> > should make the website give a clear message that:
> > 
> >   a) GRUB Legacy is obsolete and we don't longer support it
> > 
> >   b) GRUB 2 is more mature than GRUB Legacy
> > 
> 
> Good idea. I just think that I'm not good at proposing a good wording
> for it.
> And maybe we should wait untill 1.97 gets released before telling grub2
> is more mature then grub-legacy.

Agreed.  We don't want to lead anyone into using 1.96.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[Felix Zielcke]

Am Montag, den 10.08.2009, 17:28 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 03:25:26PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 18:19 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:45:35AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:05 +0200, adrian15 wrote:
> > > > > Felix Zielcke escribió:
> > > > > > I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
> > > > > > Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
> > > > > > comes before December)
> > > > > That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see anything wrong with being "under development".  I hope that
> > > > GRUB 2 will be under development even after the 1.97.  I don't see how
> > > > Debian can have any problem with that.
> > > 
> > > It depends.  If we say GRUB 2 is "under development" but we don't say anything
> > > about GRUB Legacy, people might think GRUB 2 is not ready.
> > > 
> > > I agree with Pavel, saying GRUB 2 is under development doesn't fail to the
> > > truth, but then again there are many ways of saying the truth.  I think we
> > > should make the website give a clear message that:
> > > 
> > >   a) GRUB Legacy is obsolete and we don't longer support it
> > > 
> > >   b) GRUB 2 is more mature than GRUB Legacy
> > > 
> > 
> > Good idea. I just think that I'm not good at proposing a good wording
> > for it.
> > And maybe we should wait untill 1.97 gets released before telling grub2
> > is more mature then grub-legacy.
> 
> Agreed.  We don't want to lead anyone into using 1.96.

Now that 1.97 finally is released (yehaw), does anyone have a good
wording for the website?


-- 
Felix Zielcke
Proud Debian Maintainer and GNU GRUB developer

Re: Should the website still say that GRUB 2 is currently under development?

[Felix Zielcke]

Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 19:21 +0100 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> Am Montag, den 10.08.2009, 17:28 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 03:25:26PM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, den 31.07.2009, 18:19 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:45:35AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:05 +0200, adrian15 wrote:
> > > > > > Felix Zielcke escribió:
> > > > > > > I think the currently under development part can be now removed.
> > > > > > > Or would it be better to wait for the 1.97 release? (which hopefully
> > > > > > > comes before December)
> > > > > > That would be nice because Debian freezes at December.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't see anything wrong with being "under development".  I hope that
> > > > > GRUB 2 will be under development even after the 1.97.  I don't see how
> > > > > Debian can have any problem with that.
> > > > 
> > > > It depends.  If we say GRUB 2 is "under development" but we don't say anything
> > > > about GRUB Legacy, people might think GRUB 2 is not ready.


Oh I even forgot that there was in the meanwhile even someone in #grub
who was a bit scared of GRUB 2 because of this sentence.
But luckly not that scared to not ask how stable it is now.



-- 
Felix Zielcke
Proud Debian Maintainer and GNU GRUB developer