On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 07:59 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > 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...
Sorry but I don't like the idea of calling the code "beta" either. I would prefer to tell Tomcat/jboss/axis etc that there is a JCL 1.1 RC5 available. That tells everybody that we think things are very close to releasable state. It also tells people that they need to test & provide feedback pretty quickly if they want to influence the release. Calling this a "beta" release implies neither of those things. Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
