Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 8/8/06, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Glad you mentioned it, btw. Everybody on this list that has a blog
> should mention the beta there.
Wouldn't that require that we actully have a beta period? Haven't seen
that in the 10.2 schedule.
Well, it is in fact fully up to our release manager to have one, of
course. But if we get to Friday, and we still have blocking issues
such that a release vote is unlikely to pass, and Rick is determined
to press forward with branching and rolling
not-really-release-candidates, it seems reasonable to have a short
beta period while the legal wrangling settles down. As I said, though,
totally up to Rick if he wants to do that.
andrew
I hope to rely heavily on the community's advice here. I'm a bit unclear
on the distinction between a beta and a release. Is it basically a
matter of whether the beta bit is turned on, preventing the candidate
from building upgradable databases? Or does does the distinction mean
more for Apache and/or Derby?
