On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 16:12 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On 2/18/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --8<------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [ ] +1 Approve this process > > [ ] +0 > > [X] -0 > > [ ] -1 Do not use this process > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think it would be a mistake to label it as "alpha". In my mind this > implies either an API that is unstable and subject to change and/or > software which isn't fully finished. As such many people may ignore an > "alpha" release and it could reduce the number of people who test it > out - since we want it tested as widely as possible my vote would be > that it is labelled "beta" once it "satisfies the quality standards > required for jakarta commons releases", rather than "alpha".
i had it in mind to release the alpha without a major announcement outside the commons. we need to approach some important downstream users and re-packagers (jboss, axis, tomcat etc) with the new code. a beta for public consumption and testing would follow once the alpha's been checked by developers for those projects. but i can live with going straight to beta if that's what people think best... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
