On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 08:53 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 12:09 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 22:59 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > > > 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. > > > > it's not about influence: it's about ensuring that the code base we have > > really is compatible and really solves the problems we think it does. i > > *really* don't want to spend the next year of my life fielding abuse > > about how bad JCL 1.1 is. IMO the only way to ensure that this does not > > happen is to get the code well tested in containers before it's full > > official release. > > > > using alpha and beta's for testing is well established amongst apache > > communities (and others) with large existing installation bases. > > > > a release candidate is not an official distribution of any kind. it's > > very difficult to get unofficial distributions tested by anyone who is > > not a developer of the product. it is very difficult to generate any > > kind of publicity around an unofficial release. IMHO it's going to take > > a lot more effort to talk organisations into testing an unofficial > > distribution that it would take to approach them about testing > > compatibility with an official public alpha or beta release. > > Ah. So what you really want is for this jarfile (whatever it is called) > to be distributed via the standard jakarta download sites, rather than > being an RC which is only available from people.apache.org/~rdonkin?
yep it would be distributed through cvs.apache.org and would be announced through the official channels ([EMAIL PROTECTED], news page of jakarta and so on). > That certainly sounds reasonable. It still sounds odd to me to call this > "alpha" or "beta" though. i'd need to include a lengthy explanation with the announcement. > I'll go with whatever release approach gets consensus... everyone but me seems to think that it's a bad idea but maybe i'll be able to talk one or two around :) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
