You must be joking!!! Have you tried at the console recently? It's like 50% there.
I'm sorry, I'll be happy to call this RC1 or 0.9 or whatever, but I'm WAY not ready to call it 1.0. There are also a ton of JIRA issues that need to be at least looked at before 1.0. Plus, like it or not, I think we really need a hot deploy directory for 1.0 (though there's a JIRA with some code for that). I guess I also think there's going to be a lot of attention focused on 1.0, and I want to take advantage of that with a great release, not just call whatever we have this week "1.0". Really, if you feel that strongly, call this a beta or RC and let's start collecting the feedback we need to make 1.0 outstanding. Aaron On 9/19/05, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +100000000000000000000000 > > Hell yeah! > > -dain > > On Sep 19, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > > > Before we discuss this to death, I propose: > > > > * we drop the M5 branch altogether > > * we fix any CTS regressions (once rather than twice) > > this also gives Aaron a couple more days to finish up his features > > * we create a 1.0 branch > > * we make sure it still passes CTS, then tag it and release as 1.0.0 > > > > That way we : > > * get rid of the Mx nomenclature that Geir positively dislikes > > and that no-one else really seems to care for > > * we don't have any confusion with 1.0-M5.42 branches > > * we get onto a major.minor.maint scheme that everyone understands > > > > and most of all, we actually get 1.0.0 out as the first certified > > release like we intended at the start of the project. > > > > -- > > Jeremy > > > >
