Re: [Bug-gnubg] Version 1.0 ?

[David Bellows]

Those seem like pretty substantial improvements and what with package
maintainers asking for some kind of clarity in the situation I think
this would be an excellent time to take 'er out of beta.

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Michael Petch <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm of the opinion that given the stability of the current builds on
> Unix and Windows platforms, and what appears as a measurable increase in
> strength and better performance on 3ply (Depreli studies suggest it),
> that we should consider ourselves at 1.0 . If we aren't at 1.0 yet, then
> we probably will never have a reason to be.
>
> We have a stable product, yes it has some known bugs, but in general I
> think we can finally pull it out of testing after more than a decade.
> Anyone have any objections?
>
> If there aren't any sizable objections, it may require some
> documentation tweaking (to up issue from 0.91) to 1.0, and possibly move
> the version of the weights file to 1.0 as well.
>
> Questions, comments etc, please feel free to make them known.
> Preliminary (not complete) Depreli results are attached using XG2
> rollouts as of 20130427. A regression (using v0.91) still has to be done
> against all decisions in the original match files to see if more
> positions need rollouts over what is in the current Depreli list. This
> would likely increase the totals, but I don't believe it will be
> substantial.
>
> --
> Michael Petch
> GNU Backgammon Developer
> OpenPGP FingerPrint=D81C 6A0D 987E 7DA5 3219 6715 466A 2ACE 5CAE 3304
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
>