On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 06:47:49PM -0400, Dom Lachowicz wrote: > I think that October 1st is extremely ambitious (read stupid) for a *stable* release >date. Things we need to get together (just from our current codebase): (...) > I'm not saying that we should wait 2 years to release. I'm very much in favor of a >1.1.1 build released around October with hopefully all of my "A" action items >followed by several more 1.1.x releases.
> We'd follow that up with a short 1.3 series which handled most of my "B" items, and >then get to 2.0. I understood that what has been proposed is a first beta version, with beta stability, and not 2.0 stabilty :) I agree with your plan, and I'd add a 1.9.x series for the run for full stability like we did on the final road to 1.0 Actually, the rpms I have built once in a while to follow the development have been name 1.0.99-date in order to allow for a hopefull 1.1.x release and keep rpm happy about upgrades :) Hugs, rms
msg25967/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
