Oleg, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter, especially on 3.0. However . . .
Quibble 1: It seems odd to make would-be users choose between an "unverifiable" production version (2.0) and a "verifiable" alpha version (3.0). Quibble 2: How long would it take to post an md5 hash, a signed 2.0.1--with or without minor bug fixes--and accompanying .asc file? Quibble 3: No one has to upgrade if he/she doesn't want to. I'll try to drop the matter for now so as not to clutter mailboxes with this seemingly trivial request. Plus, I'm sure you all have bigger fish to fry (e.g., 3.0). Thanks, Tom -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 9:25 AM To: Jakarta Commons Users List Subject: RE: httpclient md5 and asc files Thomas, HttpClient 2.0 tuned out to be quite robust. We had only four bug fixes since the 2.0 final release, none of which can be considered serious. Basically at this point I personally see no reason to release as there are no compelling reasons to upgrade (unless bitten by one of those minor bugs). As far as we are concerned HttpClient 2.0 is a dead-end. We would like see people consider upgrading straight to 3.0 which brings several significant enhancements compared to 2.0. As to 2.0.1 release, it will happen as soon as there's at least one more or less serious bug to be fixed in the 2.0 branch, or to coincide with the first 3.0 BETA expected around late August - September timeframe. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
