So looking back on the past three releases, they're all about 1 - 1.5 months apart (2.0.0 -> 2.0.1 -> 2.0.2/3). That seems like a reasonable release rate right now, given the number of things in 2.0 that could use touching up or speeding up.
Not to get too far ahead of myself, I'm thinking that we should pick about a month's work and schedule it for 2.0.4. My speedups for ACL's and mailboxes are in good shape (90% releasable right now) and Paul is ready with ic_search speedups. Barring any major new bugs, perhaps 2.0.4 will be the release of efficiency and speedup :-) Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Aaron, I'm backing out the search optimization just to be sure. Cool, thanks. I'm sure it would have worked, but it's bad practice in general (and one I'd be often guilty of, too, if not for people reminding me not to do it). Really nice work getting the SIGPIPE fixed so quickly! I'm looking forward to a few quiet days of little bugs and new ideas on the mailing list ;-) >>>> Personally I don't see much value in extending the release process. If >>>> people don't test cvs snapshots, they won't test release candidates. >>> >>> I disagree. Naming is everything. In order to find this problem, a real >>> site would have had to test out an RC in a (semi-)production environment. >>> Nobody would do that with a snapshot, but many more admins might try an >>> RC. Ilja, would you be interested in trying this approach? Or, at the least, figuring out some way to only make snapshots if CVS has changed? Aaron
